Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37488023›Full record

ReviewJournal of biomedical informatics2023

Few-shot learning for medical text: A review of advances, trends, and opportunities.

Yao Ge, Yuting Guo, Sudeshna Das, Mohammed Ali Al-Garadi, Abeed Sarker

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Scoring Physician Risk Communication in Prostate Cancer Using Large Language Models.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Scoring Physician Risk Communication in Prostate Cancer Using Large Language Models.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Yao GeDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.
Yuting GuoDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.
Sudeshna DasDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.
Mohammed Ali Al-GaradiDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States of America.
Abeed SarkerDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America. Electronic address: abeed@dbmi.emory.edu.

Funding

Mining Social Media Big Data for Toxicovigilance: Studying Substance Use via Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning MethodsR01DA057599 · NIDA · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI Abeed H Sarker · 2022 to 2026
$2.2M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA057599
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFew-shot learning (FSL) is a class of machine learning methods that require small numbers of labeled instances for training. With many medical topics having limited annotated text-based data in practical settings, FSL-based natural language processing (NLP) holds substantial promise. We aimed to conduct a review to explore the current state of FSL methods for medical NLP.

methodsWe searched for articles published between January 2016 and October 2022 using PubMed/Medline, Embase, ACL Anthology, and IEEE Xplore Digital Library. We also searched the preprint servers (e.g., arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv) via Google Scholar to identify the latest relevant methods. We included all articles that involved FSL and any form of medical text. We abstracted articles based on the data source, target task, training set size, primary method(s)/approach(es), and evaluation metric(s).

resultsFifty-one articles met our inclusion criteria-all published after 2018, and most since 2020 (42/51; 82%). Concept extraction/named entity recognition was the most frequently addressed task (21/51; 41%), followed by text classification (16/51; 31%). Thirty-two (61%) articles reconstructed existing datasets to fit few-shot scenarios, and MIMIC-III was the most frequently used dataset (10/51; 20%). 77% of the articles attempted to incorporate prior knowledge to augment the small datasets available for training. Common methods included FSL with attention mechanisms (20/51; 39%), prototypical networks (11/51; 22%), meta-learning (7/51; 14%), and prompt-based learning methods, the latter being particularly popular since 2021. Benchmarking experiments demonstrated relative underperformance of FSL methods on biomedical NLP tasks.

conclusionDespite the potential for FSL in biomedical NLP, progress has been limited. This may be attributed to the rarity of specialized data, lack of standardized evaluation criteria, and the underperformance of FSL methods on biomedical topics. The creation of publicly-available specialized datasets for biomedical FSL may aid method development by facilitating comparative analyses.

Indexed as

Machine LearningNatural Language ProcessingMEDLINEPublicationsPubMedBiomedical informaticsFew-shot learningMachine learningNatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID37488023
PMCPMC10940971

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.