ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2024
Modeling disagreement in automatic data labeling for semi-supervised learning in Clinical Natural Language Processing.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2024. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Computational models providing accurate estimates of their uncertainty are crucial for risk management associated with decision-making in healthcare contexts. This is especially true since many state-of-the-art systems are trained using the data which have been labeled automatically (self-supervised mode) and tend to overfit. Methods: In this study, we investigate the quality of uncertainty estimates from a range of current state-of-the-art predictive models applied to the problem of observation detection in radiology reports. This problem remains understudied for Natural Language Processing in the healthcare domain. Results: We demonstrate that Gaussian Processes (GPs) provide superior performance in quantifying the risks of three uncertainty labels based on the negative log predictive probability (NLPP) evaluation metric and mean maximum predicted confidence levels (MMPCL), whilst retaining strong predictive performance. Discussion: Our conclusions highlight the utility of probabilistic models applied to "noisy" labels and that similar methods could provide utility for Natural Language Processing (NLP) based automated labeling tasks.
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.