ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2022
Trustworthy assertion classification through prompting.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
- Extracting post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection symptoms from clinical notes via hybrid natural language processing.npj health systems · 2025Article
- Prompt Engineering Paradigms for Medical Applications: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Assertion Detection in Clinical Natural Language Processing using Large Language Models.Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics · 2024Article
- Few-shot learning for medical text: A review of advances, trends, and opportunities.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2023Review
- An NLP approach to identify SDoH-related circumstance and suicide crisis from death investigation narratives.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- Diffusion Tensor Imaging in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: Machine Learning for Biomarker Development.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate identification of the presence, absence or possibility of relevant entities in clinical notes is important for healthcare professionals to quickly understand crucial clinical information. This introduces the task of assertion classification - to correctly identify the assertion status of an entity in the unstructured clinical notes. Recent rule-based and machine-learning approaches suffer from labor-intensive pattern engineering and severe class bias toward majority classes. To solve this problem, in this study, we propose a prompt-based learning approach, which treats the assertion classification task as a masked language auto-completion problem. We evaluated the model on six datasets. Our prompt-based method achieved a micro-averaged F-1 of 0.954 on the i2b2 2010 assertion dataset, with ∼1.8% improvements over previous works. In particular, our model showed excellence in detecting classes with few instances (few-shot). Evaluations on five external datasets showcase the outstanding generalizability of the prompt-based method to unseen data. To examine the rationality of our model, we further introduced two rationale faithfulness metrics: comprehensiveness and sufficiency. The results reveal that compared to the "pre-train, fine-tune" procedure, our prompt-based model has a stronger capability of identifying the comprehensive (∼63.93%) and sufficient (∼11.75%) linguistic features from free text. We further evaluated the model-agnostic explanations using LIME. The results imply a better rationale agreement between our model and human beings (∼71.93% in average F-1), which demonstrates the superior trustworthiness of our model.
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.