↓ Skip to main content

An active learning-enabled annotation system for clinical named entity recognition

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An active learning-enabled annotation system for clinical named entity recognition
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12911-017-0466-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yukun Chen, Thomas A. Lask, Qiaozhu Mei, Qingxia Chen, Sungrim Moon, Jingqi Wang, Ky Nguyen, Tolulola Dawodu, Trevor Cohen, Joshua C. Denny, Hua Xu

Abstract

Active learning (AL) has shown the promising potential to minimize the annotation cost while maximizing the performance in building statistical natural language processing (NLP) models. However, very few studies have investigated AL in a real-life setting in medical domain. In this study, we developed the first AL-enabled annotation system for clinical named entity recognition (NER) with a novel AL algorithm. Besides the simulation study to evaluate the novel AL algorithm, we further conducted user studies with two nurses using this system to assess the performance of AL in real world annotation processes for building clinical NER models. The simulation results show that the novel AL algorithm outperformed traditional AL algorithm and random sampling. However, the user study tells a different story that AL methods did not always perform better than random sampling for different users. We found that the increased information content of actively selected sentences is strongly offset by the increased time required to annotate them. Moreover, the annotation time was not considered in the querying algorithms. Our future work includes developing better AL algorithms with the estimation of annotation time and evaluating the system with larger number of users.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 18%
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Student > Master 10 13%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 29 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 16 20%
Engineering 5 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 35 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 April 2018.
All research outputs
#18,585,544
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,583
of 2,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,810
of 313,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#33
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,008 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,329 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.