ArticleAMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science2019
Cost-sensitive Active Learning for Phenotyping of Electronic Health Records.
Article in AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Active deep learning for the identification of concepts and relations in electroencephalography reports.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2019Article
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
Developing high-throughput and high-performance phenotyping algorithms is critical to the secondary use of electronic health records for clinical research. Supervised machine learning-based methods have shown good performance, but often require large annotated datasets that are costly to build. Simulation studies have shown that active learning (AL) could reduce the number of annotated samples while improving the model performance when assuming that the time of labeling each sample is the same (i.e., cost-insensitive). In this study, we proposed a cost- sensitive AL (CostAL) algorithm for clinical phenotyping, using the identification of breast cancer patients as a use case. CostAL implements a linear regression model to estimate the actual time required for annotating each individual sample. We recruited two annotators to manual review medical records of 766 potential breast cancer patients and recorded the actual time of annotating each sample. We then compared CostAL, AL, and passive learning (PL, aka random sampling) using this annotated dataset and generated learning curves for each method. Our experimental results showed that CostAL achieved the highest area under the curve (AUC) score among the three algorithms (PL, AL, and CostAL are 0.784, 0.8501, and 0.8673 for user 1 and 0.8006, 0.8806 and 0.9006 for user 2). To achieve an accuracy of 0.94, AL and CostAL could save 36% and 60% annotation time for user 1 and 53% and 70% annotation time for user 2, when they were compared with PL, indicating the value of cost-sensitive AL approaches.
Identifiers
31259040PMC6568101What 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.