ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2020
Facilitating information extraction without annotated data using unsupervised and positive-unlabeled learning.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Information extraction (IE), the distillation of specific information from unstructured data, is a core task in natural language processing. For rare entities (<1% prevalence), collection of positive examples required to train a model may require an infeasibly large sample of mostly negative ones. We combined unsupervised- with biased positive-unlabeled (PU) learning methods to: 1) facilitate positive example collection while maintaining the assumptions needed to 2) learn a binary classifier from the biased positive-unlabeled data alone. We tested the methods on a real-life use case of rare (<0.42%) entity extraction from medical malpractice documents. When tested on a manually reviewed random sample of documents, the PU model achieved an area under the precision-recall curve of0.283 and Fj of 0.410, outperforming fully supervised learning (0.022 and 0.096, respectively). The results demonstrate our method's potential to reduce the manual effort required for extracting rare entities from narrative texts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33936440PMC8075513What 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.