ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2014
Stochastic Gradient Descent and the Prediction of MeSH for PubMed Records.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiple machine learning models for predicting major adverse cardiovascular events in dialysis with clinical and echocardiographic parameters: a retrospective cohort study.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence derived grading of mustard gas induced corneal injury and opacity.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- MeSH Now: automatic MeSH indexing at PubMed scale via learning to rank.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2017Article
- 12 years on - Is the NLM medical text indexer still useful and relevant?Journal of biomedical semantics · 2017Article
- Predicting MeSH Beyond MEDLINE.Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Scholarly Web Mining. Workshop on Scholarly Web Mining (1st : 2017 : Cambridge, England) · 2017Article
- Automatic Assignment of Non-Leaf MeSH Terms to Biomedical Articles.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) has gained popularity for solving large scale supervised machine learning problems. It provides a rapid method for minimizing a number of loss functions and is applicable to Support Vector Machine (SVM) and Logistic optimizations. However SGD does not provide a convenient stopping criterion. Generally an optimal number of iterations over the data may be determined using held out data. Here we compare stopping predictions based on held out data with simply stopping at a fixed number of iterations and show that the latter works as well as the former for a number of commonly studied text classification problems. In particular fixed stopping works well for MeSH(®) predictions on PubMed(®) records. We also surveyed the published algorithms for SVM learning on large data sets, and chose three for comparison: PROBE, SVMperf, and Liblinear and compared them with SGD with a fixed number of iterations. We find SGD with a fixed number of iterations performs as well as these alternative methods and is much faster to compute. As an application we made SGD-SVM predictions for all MeSH terms and used the Pool Adjacent Violators (PAV) algorithm to convert these predictions to probabilities. Such probabilistic predictions lead to ranked MeSH term predictions superior to previously published results on two test sets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25954431PMC4419959What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.