ArticleHeliyon2024
Use of noisy labels as weak learners to identify incompletely ascertainable outcomes: A Feasibility study with opioid-induced respiratory depression.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive Models for Identifying Adult Patients at High Risk of Developing Opioid-Related Harms: a Systematic Review.Drug safety · 2025Pooled it
- Weak-Supervision Expectation-Maximization Framework for Identifying Decisional Vulnerability in Older Emergency Department Patients.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Opioid Safety Surveillance from Clinical Text: A Clinically Focused Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Assigning outcome labels to large observational data sets in a timely and accurate manner, particularly when outcomes are rare or not directly ascertainable, remains a significant challenge within biomedical informatics. We examined whether noisy labels generated from subject matter experts' heuristics using heterogenous data types within a data programming paradigm could provide outcomes labels to a large, observational data set. We chose the clinical condition of opioid-induced respiratory depression for our use case because it is rare, has no administrative codes to easily identify the condition, and typically requires at least some unstructured text to ascertain its presence. Materials and methods: Using de-identified electronic health records of 52,861 post-operative encounters, we applied a data programming paradigm (implemented in the Snorkel software) for the development of a machine learning classifier for opioid-induced respiratory depression. Our approach included subject matter experts creating 14 labeling functions that served as noisy labels for developing a probabilistic Generative model. We used probabilistic labels from the Generative model as outcome labels for training a Discriminative model on the source data. We evaluated performance of the Discriminative model with a hold-out test set of 599 independently-reviewed patient records. Results: The final Discriminative classification model achieved an accuracy of 0.977, an F1 score of 0.417, a sensitivity of 1.0, and an AUC of 0.988 in the hold-out test set with a prevalence of 0.83% (5/599). Discussion: All of the confirmed Cases were identified by the classifier. For rare outcomes, this finding is encouraging because it reduces the number of manual reviews needed by excluding visits/patients with low probabilities. Conclusion: Application of a data programming paradigm with expert-informed labeling functions might have utility for phenotyping clinical phenomena that are not easily ascertainable from highly-structured data.
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.