Paper detail

Adapting and evaluating a deep learning language model for clinical why-question answering

Objectives: To adapt and evaluate a deep learning language model for answering why-questions based on patient-specific clinical text. Materials and Methods: Bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) models were trained with varying data sources to perform SQuAD 2.0 style why-question answering (why-QA) on clinical notes. The evaluation focused on: 1) comparing the merits from different training data, 2) error analysis. Results: The best model achieved an accuracy of 0.707 (or 0.760 by partial match). Training toward customization for the clinical language helped increase 6% in accuracy. Discussion: The error analysis suggested that the model did not really perform deep reasoning and that clinical why-QA might warrant more sophisticated solutions. Conclusion: The BERT model achieved moderate accuracy in clinical why-QA and should benefit from the rapidly evolving technology. Despite the identified limitations, it could serve as a competent proxy for question-driven clinical information extraction.

preprint2019arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.