MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394905977 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.10171

Are Medium-Sized Transformers Models still Relevant for Medical Records Processing?

2024· preprint· en· W4394905977 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Boammani Aser Lompo, Thanh-Dung Le

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéInstitut de Valorisation des DonnéesUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsNarrativePsychologyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As large language models (LLMs) become the standard in many NLP applications, we explore the potential of medium-sized pretrained transformer models as a viable alternative for medical record processing. Medical records generated by healthcare professionals during patient admissions remain underutilized due to challenges such as complex medical terminology, the limited ability of pretrained models to interpret numerical data, and the scarcity of annotated training datasets. Objective: This study aims to classify numerical values extracted from medical records into seven distinct physiological categories using CamemBERT-bio. Previous research has suggested that transformer-based models may underperform compared to traditional NLP approaches in this context. Methods: To enhance the performance of CamemBERT-bio, we propose two key innovations: (1) incorporating keyword embeddings to refine the model's attention mechanisms and (2) adopting a number-agnostic strategy by removing numerical values from the text to encourage context-driven learning. Additionally, we assess the criticality of extracted numerical data by verifying whether values fall within established standard ranges. Results: Our findings demonstrate significant performance improvements, with CamemBERT-bio achieving an F1 score of 0.89 - an increase of over 20% compared to the 0.73 F1 score of traditional methods and only 0.06 units lower than GPT-4. These results were obtained despite the use of small and imbalanced training datasets.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207