Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33381748›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2020

Natural language processing systems for pathology parsing in limited data environments with uncertainty estimation.

Anobel Y Odisho, Briton Park, Nicholas Altieri, John DeNero, Matthew R Cooperberg, Peter R Carroll, Bin Yu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Natural Language Processing: from Bedside to Everywhere.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

7 authors.

Anobel Y OdishoDepartment of Urology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0975-0812
Briton ParkDepartment of Statistics, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA.
Nicholas AltieriDepartment of Statistics, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA.
John DeNeroDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA.
Matthew R CooperbergDepartment of Urology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California, USA.
Peter R CarrollDepartment of Urology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California, USA.
Bin YuDepartment of Statistics, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCancer is a leading cause of death, but much of the diagnostic information is stored as unstructured data in pathology reports. We aim to improve uncertainty estimates of machine learning-based pathology parsers and evaluate performance in low data settings. MATERIALS AND

methodsOur data comes from the Urologic Outcomes Database at UCSF which includes 3232 annotated prostate cancer pathology reports from 2001 to 2018. We approach 17 separate information extraction tasks, involving a wide range of pathologic features. To handle the diverse range of fields, we required 2 statistical models, a document classification method for pathologic features with a small set of possible values and a token extraction method for pathologic features with a large set of values. For each model, we used isotonic calibration to improve the model's estimates of its likelihood of being correct.

resultsOur best document classifier method, a convolutional neural network, achieves a weighted F1 score of 0.97 averaged over 12 fields and our best extraction method achieves an accuracy of 0.93 averaged over 5 fields. The performance saturates as a function of dataset size with as few as 128 data points. Furthermore, while our document classifier methods have reliable uncertainty estimates, our extraction-based methods do not, but after isotonic calibration, expected calibration error drops to below 0.03 for all extraction fields.

conclusionsWe find that when applying machine learning to pathology parsing, large datasets may not always be needed, and that calibration methods can improve the reliability of uncertainty estimates.

Indexed as

cancerinformation extractionmachine learningnatural language processingpathologyprostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID33381748
PMCPMC7751177

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.