Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38101690›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2024

Deep learning uncertainty quantification for clinical text classification.

Alina Peluso, Ioana Danciu, Hong-Jun Yoon, Jamaludin Mohd Yusof, Tanmoy Bhattacharya, Adam Spannaus, Noah Schaefferkoetter, Eric B Durbin, Xiao-Cheng Wu, Antoinette Stroup and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

17 authors.

Alina PelusoOak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37830, United States. Electronic address: pelusoa@ornl.gov.
Ioana DanciuOak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37830, United States.
Hong-Jun YoonOak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37830, United States.
Jamaludin Mohd YusofLos Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, United States.
Tanmoy BhattacharyaLos Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, United States.
Adam SpannausOak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37830, United States.
Noah SchaefferkoetterOak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37830, United States.
Eric B DurbinUniversity of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40536, United States.
Xiao-Cheng WuLouisiana State University, New Orleans, LA 70112, United States.
Antoinette StroupRutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, United States.
Jennifer DohertyUniversity of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84132, United States.
Stephen SchwartzFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA 98109, United States.
Charles WigginsUniversity of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, United States.
Linda CoyleInformation Management Services Inc., Calverton, MD 20705, United States.
Lynne PenberthyNational Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20814, United States.
Georgia D TourassiOak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37830, United States.
Shang GaoOak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37830, United States.

Funding

University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center Support Grant ECIA SupplementP30CA177558 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI KATHLEEN L. O'CONNOR · 2013 to 2026
$38.3M
POLICY & ENVIRONMENTAL APPROACHES & COMMUNITY-CLINICAL LINKAGES IN CANCER PROGRAMU58DP003907 · DP · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI TUCKER, THOMAS C · 2012 to 2014
$3.8M
Oncology Research Training for Surgeon-ScientistsT32CA160003 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI Bernard Mark Evers, Pamela Carmen Hull · 2011 to 2026
$3.2M
NCCDPHP CDC HHS U58 DP003907NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201100007INCI NIH HHS HHSN261201300007INCI NIH HHS HHSN261201300021CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201800007CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201800013CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201800013INCI NIH HHS HHSN261201800014CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201800014INCI NIH HHS HHSN261201800016CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201800016INCI NIH HHS P30 CA177558NCI NIH HHS T32 CA160003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMachine learning algorithms are expected to work side-by-side with humans in decision-making pipelines. Thus, the ability of classifiers to make reliable decisions is of paramount importance. Deep neural networks (DNNs) represent the state-of-the-art models to address real-world classification. Although the strength of activation in DNNs is often correlated with the network's confidence, in-depth analyses are needed to establish whether they are well calibrated.

methodIn this paper, we demonstrate the use of DNN-based classification tools to benefit cancer registries by automating information extraction of disease at diagnosis and at surgery from electronic text pathology reports from the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) population-based cancer registries. In particular, we introduce multiple methods for selective classification to achieve a target level of accuracy on multiple classification tasks while minimizing the rejection amount-that is, the number of electronic pathology reports for which the model's predictions are unreliable. We evaluate the proposed methods by comparing our approach with the current in-house deep learning-based abstaining classifier.

resultsOverall, all the proposed selective classification methods effectively allow for achieving the targeted level of accuracy or higher in a trade-off analysis aimed to minimize the rejection rate. On in-distribution validation and holdout test data, with all the proposed methods, we achieve on all tasks the required target level of accuracy with a lower rejection rate than the deep abstaining classifier (DAC). Interpreting the results for the out-of-distribution test data is more complex; nevertheless, in this case as well, the rejection rate from the best among the proposed methods achieving 97% accuracy or higher is lower than the rejection rate based on the DAC.

conclusionsWe show that although both approaches can flag those samples that should be manually reviewed and labeled by human annotators, the newly proposed methods retain a larger fraction and do so without retraining-thus offering a reduced computational cost compared with the in-house deep learning-based abstaining classifier.

Indexed as

Deep LearningAlgorithmsHumansMachine LearningNeural Networks, ComputerUncertaintyAbstaining classifierAccuracyCNNDeep learningDNNHiSANNCI SEERPathology reportsSelective classificationText classificationUncertainty quantification

Identifiers

PMID38101690
PMCPMC11467893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.