Evaluating Active Learning Strategies for Automated Classification of Patient Safety Event Reports in Hospitals
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
Patient safety event (PSE) reports, which document incidents that compromise patient safety, are fundamental for improving healthcare quality. Accurate classification of these reports is crucial for analyzing trends, guiding interventions, and supporting organizational learning. However, this process is labor-intensive due to the high volume and complex taxonomy of reports. Previous work has shown that machine learning (ML) can automate PSE report classification; however, its success depends on large manually-labeled datasets. This study leverages Active Learning (AL) strategies with human expertise to streamline PSE-report labeling. We utilize pool-based AL sampling to selectively query reports for human annotation, developing a robust dataset for training ML classifiers. Our experiments demonstrate that AL significantly outperforms random sampling in accuracy across various text representations, reducing the need for labeled samples by 24% to 69%. Based on these findings, we suggest that incorporating AL strategies into PSE-report labeling can effectively reduce manual workload while maintaining high classification accuracy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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