MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392656250 · doi:10.1186/s12874-024-02192-8

Text analysis framework for identifying mutations among non-small cell lung cancer patients from laboratory data

2024· article· en· W4392656250 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Amman Yusuf, Devon J. Boyne, Dylan E. O’Sullivan, Darren R. Brenner, Winson Y. Cheung, Imran Mirza, Tamer N. Jarada

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Research Methodology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory ServicesUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsComputer scienceLexical analysisNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceInformation extractionSyntaxContext (archaeology)PopulationInformation retrievalMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Laboratory data can provide great value to support research aimed at reducing the incidence, prolonging survival and enhancing outcomes of cancer. Data is characterized by the information it carries and the format it holds. Data captured in Alberta's biomarker laboratory repository is free text, cluttered and rouge. Such data format limits its utility and prohibits broader adoption and research development. Text analysis for information extraction of unstructured data can change this and lead to more complete analyses. Previous work on extracting relevant information from free text, unstructured data employed Natural Language Processing (NLP), Machine Learning (ML), rule-based Information Extraction (IE) methods, or a hybrid combination between them. METHODS: In our study, text analysis was performed on Alberta Precision Laboratories data which consisted of 95,854 entries from the Southern Alberta Dataset (SAD) and 6944 entries from the Northern Alberta Dataset (NAD). The data covers all of Alberta and is completely population-based. Our proposed framework is built around rule-based IE methods. It incorporates topics such as Syntax and Lexical analyses to achieve deterministic extraction of data from biomarker laboratory data (i.e., Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) test results). Lexical analysis compromises of data cleaning and pre-processing, Rich Text Format text conversion into readable plain text format, and normalization and tokenization of text. The framework then passes the text into the Syntax analysis stage which includes the rule-based method of extracting relevant data. Rule-based patterns of the test result are identified, and a Context Free Grammar then generates the rules of information extraction. Finally, the results are linked with the Alberta Cancer Registry to support real-world cancer research studies. RESULTS: Of the original 5512 entries in the SAD dataset and 5017 entries in the NAD dataset which were filtered for EGFR, the framework yielded 5129 and 3388 extracted EGFR test results from the SAD and NAD datasets, respectively. An accuracy of 97.5% was achieved on a random sample of 362 tests. CONCLUSIONS: We presented a text analysis framework to extract specific information from unstructured clinical data. Our proposed framework has shown that it can successfully extract relevant information from EGFR test results.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.355
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical Research MethodologySame topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207