ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2017
Automatic classification of RDoC positive valence severity with a neural network.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine Learning and Natural Language Processing in Mental Health: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- Enhancing post-traumatic stress disorder patient assessment: leveraging natural language processing for research of domain criteria identification using electronic medical records.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Predicting which patients with cancer will see a psychiatrist or counsellor from their initial oncology consultation document using natural language processing.Communications medicine · 2024Article
- Clinical Text Data in Machine Learning: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2020Review
- Article
- A natural language processing challenge for clinical records: Research Domains Criteria (RDoC) for psychiatry.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2017Article
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
objectiveOur objective was to develop a machine learning-based system to determine the severity of Positive Valance symptoms for a patient, based on information included in their initial psychiatric evaluation. Severity was rated on an ordinal scale of 0-3 as follows: 0 (absent=no symptoms), 1 (mild=modest significance), 2 (moderate=requires treatment), 3 (severe=causes substantial impairment) by experts. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe treated the task of assigning Positive Valence severity as a text classification problem. During development, we experimented with regularized multinomial logistic regression classifiers, gradient boosted trees, and feedforward, fully-connected neural networks. We found both regularization and feature selection via mutual information to be very important in preventing models from overfitting the data. Our best configuration was a neural network with three fully connected hidden layers with rectified linear unit activations.
resultsOur best performing system achieved a score of 77.86%. The evaluation metric is an inverse normalization of the Mean Absolute Error presented as a percentage number between 0 and 100, where 100 means the highest performance. Error analysis showed that 90% of the system errors involved neighboring severity categories.
conclusionMachine learning text classification techniques with feature selection can be trained to recognize broad differences in Positive Valence symptom severity with a modest amount of training data (in this case 600 documents, 167 of which were unannotated). An increase in the amount of annotated data can increase accuracy of symptom severity classification by several percentage points. Additional features and/or a larger training corpus may further improve accuracy.
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.