Numerical Attributes Learning for Cardiac Failure Diagnostic from Clinical Narratives -- A LESA-CamemBERT-bio Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical records created by healthcare professionals upon patient admission are rich in details critical for diagnosis. Yet, their potential is not fully realized because of obstacles such as complex medical language, inadequate comprehension of medical numerical data by state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs), and the limitations imposed by small annotated training datasets. This research aims to classify numerical values extracted from medical documents across seven distinct physiological categories, employing CamemBERT-bio. Previous studies suggested that transformer-based models might not perform as well as traditional NLP models in such tasks. To enhance CamemBERT-bio's performances, we introduce two main innovations: integrating keyword embeddings into the model and adopting a number-agnostic strategy by excluding all numerical data from the text. The implementation of label embedding techniques refines the attention mechanisms, while the technique of using a `numerical-blind' dataset aims to bolster context-centric learning. Another key component of our research is determining the criticality of extracted numerical data. To achieve this, we utilized a simple approach that involves verifying if the value falls within the established standard ranges Our findings are encouraging, showing substantial improvements in the effectiveness of CamemBERT-bio, surpassing conventional methods with an F1 score of 0.89. This represents an over 20\% increase over the 0.73 $F_1$ score of traditional approaches and an over 9\% increase over the 0.82 $F_1$ score of state-of-the-art approaches.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".