ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2025
Comparison of active learning algorithms in classifying head computed tomography reports using bidirectional encoder representations from transformers.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond uncertainty in modern active learning for trustworthy AI.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSystems equipped with natural language (NLP) processing can reduce missed radiological findings by physicians, but the annotation costs are burden in the development. This study aimed to compare the effects of active learning (AL) algorithms in NLP for estimating the significance of head computed tomography (CT) reports using bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT).
methodsA total of 3728 head CT reports annotated with five categories of importance were used and UTH-BERT was adopted as the pre-trained BERT model. We assumed that 64% (2385 reports) of the data were initially in the unlabeled data pool (UDP), while the labeled data set (LD) used to train the model was empty. Twenty-five reports were repeatedly selected from the UDP and added to the LD, based on seven metrices: random sampling (RS: control), four uncertainty sampling (US) methods (least confidence (LC), margin sampling (MS), ratio of confidence (RC), and entropy sampling (ES)), and two distance-based sampling (DS) methods (cosine distance (CD) and Euclidian distance (ED)). The transition of accuracy of the model was evaluated using the test dataset.
resultsThe accuracy of the models with US was significantly higher than RS when reports in LD were < 1800, whereas DS methods were significantly lower than RS. Among the US methods, MS and RC were even better than the others. With the US methods, the required labeled data decreased by 15.4-40.5%, and most efficient in RC. In addition, in the US methods, data for minor categories tended to be added to LD earlier than RS and DS.
conclusionsIn the classification task for the importance of head CT reports, US methods, especially RC and MS can lead to the effective fine-tuning of BERT models and reduce the imbalance of categories. AL can contribute to other studies on larger datasets by providing effective annotation.
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.