ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
An active learning pipeline to automatically identify candidate terms for a CDSS ontology-measures, experiments, and performance.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To explore new strategies to make the document selection process more transparent, reproducible, and effective for the active learning process. The ultimate goal is to leverage active learning in identifying keyphrases to facilitate ontology development and construction, to streamline the process, and help with the long-term maintenance. Methods: The active learning pipeline used a BILSTM-CRF model and over 2900 abstracts retrieved from PubMed relevant to clinical decision support systems. We started the model training with synthetic labeled abstracts, then used different strategies to select domain experts' annotated abstracts (gold standards). Random sampling was used as the baseline. Recall, F1 (beta = 1, 5, and 10) scores are used as measures to compare the performance of the active learning pipeline by different strategies. Results: We tested four novel document-level uncertainty aggregation strategies-KPSum, KPAvg, DOCSum, and DOCAvg-that operate over standard token-level uncertainty scores such as Maximum Token Probability (MTP), Token Entropy (TE), and Margin. All strategies show significant improvement in early active learning cycles (θ Conclusion: While prior work on uncertainty sampling typically focuses on token-level uncertainty metrics within generic NER tasks, our work advances this line of research by introducing a higher-level abstraction: document-level uncertainty aggregation. With a human-in-the-loop Active Learning pipeline, it can effectively prioritize high-impact documents, improve early-cycle recall, and reduce annotation effort. Our results show promise in automating part of ontology construction and maintenance work, i.e., monitoring and screening new publications to identify candidate keyphrases. However, future work needs to improve the model performance to make it usable in real-world operations.
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.