Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26063744›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2015

Expert guided natural language processing using one-class classification.

Erel Joffe, Emily J Pettigrew, Jorge R Herskovic, Charles F Bearden, Elmer V Bernstam

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Cost-sensitive Active Learning for Phenotyping of Electronic Health Records.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2019
    Article
  6. 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 · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

5 authors.

Erel JoffeSchool of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Texas Department of Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation, Tel Aviv Medical Center, Tel Aviv Israel.
Emily J PettigrewDepartment of Computer Science, Rice University, Houston, Texas.
Jorge R HerskovicSchool of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Texas The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Charles F BeardenSchool of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Texas.
Elmer V BernstamSchool of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Texas Department of Internal Medicine, Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas Elmer.v.bernstam@uth.tmc.edu.

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
UT Southwestern Center for Translational Medicine (UL1/KL2/TL1)UL1TR001105 · NCATS · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI TOTO, ROBERT DANIEL · 2013 to 2017
$24.5M
Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences (CCTS)UL1TR000371 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI MCPHERSON, DAVID D · 2012 to 2016
$13.4M
Informatics to enable routine personalized cancer therapyU01CA180964 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI BERNSTAM, ELMER V., MERIC-BERNSTAM, FUNDA · 2013 to 2015
$964k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000371NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001105NCI NIH HHS U01 CA180964
6 · The paper itself

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

Natural Language ProcessingSupport Vector MachineBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMedical Recordsfeature selectionnatural language processingnovelty detectionone class classification

Identifiers

PMID26063744
PMCPMC4986669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.