Multi-view representation learning for tabular data integration using inter-feature relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: An applied problem facing all areas of data science is harmonizing data sources. Joining data from multiple origins with unmapped and only partially overlapping features is a prerequisite to developing and testing robust, generalizable algorithms, especially in healthcare. This integrating is usually resolved using meta-data such as feature names, which may be unavailable or ambiguous. Our goal is to design methods that create a mapping between structured tabular datasets derived from electronic health records independent of meta-data. METHODS: We evaluate methods in the challenging case of numeric features without reliable and distinctive univariate summaries, such as nearly Gaussian and binary features. We assume that a small set of features are a priori mapped between two datasets, which share unknown identical features and possibly many unrelated features. Inter-feature relationships are the main source of identification which we expect. We compare the performance of contrastive learning methods for feature representations, novel partial auto-encoders, mutual-information graph optimizers, and simple statistical baselines on simulated data, public datasets, the MIMIC-III medical-record changeover, and perioperative records from before and after a medical-record system change. Performance was evaluated using both mapping of identical features and reconstruction accuracy of examples in the format of the other dataset. RESULTS: Contrastive learning-based methods overall performed the best, often substantially beating the literature baseline in matching and reconstruction, especially in the more challenging real data experiments. Partial auto-encoder methods showed on-par matching with contrastive methods in all synthetic and some real datasets, along with good reconstruction. However, the statistical method we created performed reasonably well in many cases, with much less dependence on hyperparameter tuning. When validating feature match output in the EHR dataset we found that some mistakes were actually a surrogate or related feature as reviewed by two subject matter experts. CONCLUSION: In simulation studies and real-world examples, we find that inter-feature relationships are effective at identifying matching or closely related features across tabular datasets when meta-data is not available. Decoder architectures are also reasonably effective at imputing features without an exact match.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".