Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39415941›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2024

Modeling disagreement in automatic data labeling for semi-supervised learning in Clinical Natural Language Processing.

Hongshu Liu, Nabeel Seedat, Julia Ive

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Hongshu LiuDepartment of Computing, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Nabeel SeedatDepartment of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Julia IveSchool of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

automated labelingclinical textGaussian processesNatural Language Processingradiologysemi-supervised learninguncertainty

Identifiers

PMID39415941
PMCPMC11480042

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.