Semi-supervised ROC analysis for reliable and streamlined evaluation of phenotyping algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: High-throughput phenotyping will accelerate the use of electronic health records (EHRs) for translational research. A critical roadblock is the extensive medical supervision required for phenotyping algorithm (PA) estimation and evaluation. To address this challenge, numerous weakly-supervised learning methods have been proposed. However, there is a paucity of methods for reliably evaluating the predictive performance of PAs when a very small proportion of the data is labeled. To fill this gap, we introduce a semi-supervised approach (ssROC) for estimation of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) parameters of PAs (eg, sensitivity, specificity). MATERIALS AND METHODS: ssROC uses a small labeled dataset to nonparametrically impute missing labels. The imputations are then used for ROC parameter estimation to yield more precise estimates of PA performance relative to classical supervised ROC analysis (supROC) using only labeled data. We evaluated ssROC with synthetic, semi-synthetic, and EHR data from Mass General Brigham (MGB). RESULTS: ssROC produced ROC parameter estimates with minimal bias and significantly lower variance than supROC in the simulated and semi-synthetic data. For the 5 PAs from MGB, the estimates from ssROC are 30% to 60% less variable than supROC on average. DISCUSSION: ssROC enables precise evaluation of PA performance without demanding large volumes of labeled data. ssROC is also easily implementable in open-source R software. CONCLUSION: When used in conjunction with weakly-supervised PAs, ssROC facilitates the reliable and streamlined phenotyping necessary for EHR-based research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".