An Unsupervised Error Detection Methodology for Detecting Mislabels in Healthcare Analytics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical datasets may be imbalanced and contain errors due to subjective test results and clinical variability. The poor quality of original data affects classification accuracy and reliability. Hence, detecting abnormal samples in the dataset can help clinicians make better decisions. In this study, we propose an unsupervised error detection method using patterns discovered by the Pattern Discovery and Disentanglement (PDD) model, developed in our earlier work. Applied to the large data, the eICU Collaborative Research Database for sepsis risk assessment, the proposed algorithm can effectively discover statistically significant association patterns, generate an interpretable knowledge base for interpretability, cluster samples in an unsupervised learning manner, and detect abnormal samples from the dataset. As shown in the experimental result, our method outperformed K-Means by 38% on the full dataset and 47% on the reduced dataset for unsupervised clustering. Multiple supervised classifiers improve accuracy by an average of 4% after removing abnormal samples by the proposed error detection approach. Therefore, the proposed algorithm provides a robust and practical solution for unsupervised clustering and error detection in healthcare data.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it