ArticlePloS one2025
Detection and classification of venous thromboembolism through image test reports analysis using active learning and deep learning.
Article in PloS one, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluated whether active learning can enable efficient classification of venous thromboembolism (VTE) reports using minimal labeled data. In parallel, we assessed whether deep learning (DL) models can achieve substantially superior performance compared to traditional machine learning (ML) models and overcome the limitations associated with small sample sizes and class imbalance in real-world clinical datasets.
methods5,839 imaging reports with, of which 1,088 (18.6%) were VTE-positive. Traditional ML models (RF, SVM, SVM with SGD, GBM) were combined with active learning strategies (random sampling, uncertainty-based, word similarity, TF-IDF similarity). DL models (LSTM, multi-kernel 1D-CNN with GloVe, BERT-based models) were also evaluated. F1 scores were used as the performance metric.
resultsAmong VTE-positive patients, 65.0% had corresponding ICD-10 codes, indicating frequent under-documentation. ML models with active learning achieved F1 scores of 0.70-0.80, while DL models, particularly LSTM and multi-kernel 1D-CNN with GloVe achieved F1 scores ≥0.94 in a 7-class classification, even under severe class imbalance. Excluding the "No DVT and PE" class for a 6-class classification among VTE-positive cases led to reduced model performance, with the largest decline observed in BioBERT. The average inference time per report ranged from 0.0014 to 0.024 seconds depending on the model architecture, suggesting that the system is feasible for near real-time deployment in clinical settings.
conclusionDL models substantially outperformed traditional ML in classifying VTE reports, with high accuracy, acceptable inference time, and robustness to class imbalance. These models hold promise for augmenting clinical workflows, particularly in addressing under-coded but clinically significant VTE cases.
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.