MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Adapting Large Language Models for Automatic Annotation of Radiology Reports for Metastases Detection

2024· article· en· W4402473640 on OpenAlexaff
Maede Ashofteh Barabadi, Wai Yip Chan, Xiaodan Zhu, Amber L. Simpson, Richard Kinh Gian

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAnnotationArtificial intelligenceNatural language processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automatic identification of metastatic sites in cancer patients from electronic health records is a challenging yet crucial task with significant implications for diagnosis and treatment. In this study, we propose a method to detect metastases from non-structured radiology report texts by accessing only their impression section. We build models based on pre-trained large language models and parameter-efficient fine-tuning. We compare model performances between utilizing non-structured reports and reports following institutional-level templates. By incorporating patient historical data and their timeline into the model, we bridge the gap between structured and non-structured reports. Our experiments are conducted on data gathered at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) which have been annotated for metastases presence in three organs: liver, lung, and adrenal glands. Our results suggest that access to previous reports significantly improves model performance, with an average improvement of 7.7 points in terms of F1-score over all datasets. Additionally, incorporating temporal information enhances the accuracy of metastasis detection by 0.4 and 1.1 points on liver and adrenal glands data, respectively. Our method shows potential for automating radiology report labeling on a large scale in an efficient manner, with the potential to deploy on low-cost hardware.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.265 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207