ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2015
Expert guided natural language processing using one-class classification.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- RespBERT: A Multi-Site Validation of a Natural Language Processing Algorithm, of Radiology Notes to Identify Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS).IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics · 2025Article
- Measuring interpersonal firearm violence: natural language processing methods to address limitations in criminal charge data.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- Assessment of Electronic Health Record for Cancer Research and Patient Care Through a Scoping Review of Cancer Natural Language Processing.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2022Article
- Cost-sensitive Active Learning for Phenotyping of Electronic Health Records.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2019Article
- Comparison of Natural Language Processing Techniques in Analysis of Sparse Clinical Data: Insulin Decline by Patients.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2019Article
- A Computable Phenotype for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Using Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2018Article
- Biomedical informatics advancing the national health agenda: the AMIA 2015 year-in-review in clinical and consumer informatics.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2017Review
- Clinical Natural Language Processing in 2015: Leveraging the Variety of Texts of Clinical Interest.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAutomatically identifying specific phenotypes in free-text clinical notes is critically important for the reuse of clinical data. In this study, the authors combine expert-guided feature (text) selection with one-class classification for text processing.
objectivesTo compare the performance of one-class classification to traditional binary classification; to evaluate the utility of feature selection based on expert-selected salient text (snippets); and to determine the robustness of these models with respects to irrelevant surrounding text.
methodsThe authors trained one-class support vector machines (1C-SVMs) and two-class SVMs (2C-SVMs) to identify notes discussing breast cancer. Manually annotated visit summary notes (88 positive and 88 negative for breast cancer) were used to compare the performance of models trained on whole notes labeled as positive or negative to models trained on expert-selected text sections (snippets) relevant to breast cancer status. Model performance was evaluated using a 70:30 split for 20 iterations and on a realistic dataset of 10 000 records with a breast cancer prevalence of 1.4%.
resultsWhen tested on a balanced experimental dataset, 1C-SVMs trained on snippets had comparable results to 2C-SVMs trained on whole notes (F = 0.92 for both approaches). When evaluated on a realistic imbalanced dataset, 1C-SVMs had a considerably superior performance (F = 0.61 vs. F = 0.17 for the best performing model) attributable mainly to improved precision (p = .88 vs. p = .09 for the best performing model).
conclusions1C-SVMs trained on expert-selected relevant text sections perform better than 2C-SVMs classifiers trained on either snippets or whole notes when applied to realistically imbalanced data with low prevalence of the positive class.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.