Paper detail

Assessment of contextualised representations in detecting outcome phrases in clinical trials

Automating the recognition of outcomes reported in clinical trials using machine learning has a huge potential of speeding up access to evidence necessary in healthcare decision-making. Prior research has however acknowledged inadequate training corpora as a challenge for the Outcome detection (OD) task. Additionally, several contextualized representations like BERT and ELMO have achieved unparalleled success in detecting various diseases, genes, proteins, and chemicals, however, the same cannot be emphatically stated for outcomes, because these models have been relatively under-tested and studied for the OD task. We introduce "EBM-COMET", a dataset in which 300 PubMed abstracts are expertly annotated for clinical outcomes. Unlike prior related datasets that use arbitrary outcome classifications, we use labels from a taxonomy recently published to standardize outcome classifications. To extract outcomes, we fine-tune a variety of pre-trained contextualized representations, additionally, we use frozen contextualized and context-independent representations in our custom neural model augmented with clinically informed Part-Of-Speech embeddings and a cost-sensitive loss function. We adopt strict evaluation for the trained models by rewarding them for correctly identifying full outcome phrases rather than words within the entities i.e. given an outcome "systolic blood pressure", the models are rewarded a classification score only when they predict all 3 words in sequence, otherwise, they are not rewarded. We observe our best model (BioBERT) achieve 81.5\% F1, 81.3\% sensitivity and 98.0\% specificity. We reach a consensus on which contextualized representations are best suited for detecting outcomes from clinical-trial abstracts. Furthermore, our best model outperforms scores published on the original EBM-NLP dataset leader-board scores.

preprint2022arXivOpen 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.