Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23845911›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2013

Semi-supervised clinical text classification with Laplacian SVMs: an application to cancer case management.

Vijay Garla, Caroline Taylor, Cynthia Brandt

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Clinical Document Classification Using Labeled and Unlabeled Data Across Hospitals.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2018
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Semi-supervised Learning for Phenotyping Tasks.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Vijay GarlaYale Center for Medical Informatics, Yale University, 300 George Street, Suite 501, New Haven, CT 06520-8009, United States. Electronic address: vijay.garla@yale.edu.
Caroline Taylor
Cynthia Brandt

Funding

YALE UNIVERSITY CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE AWARD PROGRAMUL1RR024139 · NCRR · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI SHERWIN, ROBERT S · 2006 to 2011
$56.8M
MEDICAL INFORMATICS RESEARCH TRAINING AT YALET15LM007056 · NLM · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI Mark Bender Gerstein, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 1987 to 2026
$22.2M
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024139NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007056NLM NIH HHS T15 LM07056
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare linear and Laplacian SVMs on a clinical text classification task; to evaluate the effect of unlabeled training data on Laplacian SVM performance.

backgroundThe development of machine-learning based clinical text classifiers requires the creation of labeled training data, obtained via manual review by clinicians. Due to the effort and expense involved in labeling data, training data sets in the clinical domain are of limited size. In contrast, electronic medical record (EMR) systems contain hundreds of thousands of unlabeled notes that are not used by supervised machine learning approaches. Semi-supervised learning algorithms use both labeled and unlabeled data to train classifiers, and can outperform their supervised counterparts.

methodsWe trained support vector machines (SVMs) and Laplacian SVMs on a training reference standard of 820 abdominal CT, MRI, and ultrasound reports labeled for the presence of potentially malignant liver lesions that require follow up (positive class prevalence 77%). The Laplacian SVM used 19,845 randomly sampled unlabeled notes in addition to the training reference standard. We evaluated SVMs and Laplacian SVMs on a test set of 520 labeled reports.

resultsThe Laplacian SVM trained on labeled and unlabeled radiology reports significantly outperformed supervised SVMs (Macro-F1 0.773 vs. 0.741, Sensitivity 0.943 vs. 0.911, Positive Predictive value 0.877 vs. 0.883). Performance improved with the number of labeled and unlabeled notes used to train the Laplacian SVM (pearson's ρ=0.529 for correlation between number of unlabeled notes and macro-F1 score). These results suggest that practical semi-supervised methods such as the Laplacian SVM can leverage the large, unlabeled corpora that reside within EMRs to improve clinical text classification.

Indexed as

Case ManagementSupport Vector MachineAlgorithmsHumansNeoplasmsGraph LaplacianNatural language processingSemi-supervised learningSupport vector machine

Identifiers

PMID23845911
PMCPMC3806632

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.