Optimising the paradigms of human AI collaborative clinical coding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated clinical coding (ACC) has emerged as a promising alternative to manual coding. This study proposes a novel human-in-the-loop (HITL) framework, CliniCoCo. Using deep learning capacities, CliniCoCo focuses on how such ACC systems and human coders can work effectively and efficiently together in real-world settings. Specifically, it implements a series of collaborative strategies at annotation, training and user interaction stages. Extensive experiments are conducted using real-world EMR datasets from Chinese hospitals. With automatically optimised annotation workloads, the model can achieve F1 scores around 0.80-0.84. For an EMR with 30% mistaken codes, CliniCoCo can suggest halving the annotations from 3000 admissions with an ignorable 0.01 F1 decrease. In human evaluations, compared to manual coding, CliniCoCo reduces coding time by 40% on average and significantly improves the correction rates on EMR mistakes (e.g., three times better on missing codes). Senior professional coders' performances can be boosted to more than 0.93 F1 score from 0.72.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".