Back

Improving Model Transferability for Clinical Note Section Classification Models Using Continued Pretraining

Zhou, W.; Yetisgen, M.; Afshar, M.; Gao, Y.; Savova, G.; Miller, T.

2023-04-24 health informatics
10.1101/2023.04.15.23288628 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveThe classification of clinical note sections is a critical step before doing more fine-grained natural language processing tasks such as social determinants of health extraction and temporal information extraction. Often, clinical note section classification models that achieve high accuracy for one institution experience a large drop of accuracy when transferred to another institution. The objective of this study is to develop methods that classify clinical note sections under the SOAP ("Subjective", "Object", "Assessment" and "Plan") framework with improved transferability. Materials and methodsWe trained the baseline models by fine-tuning BERT-based models, and enhanced their transferability with continued pretraining, including domain adaptive pretraining (DAPT) and task adaptive pretraining (TAPT). We added out-of-domain annotated samples during fine-tuning and observed model performance over a varying number of annotated sample size. Finally, we quantified the impact of continued pretraining in equivalence of the number of in-domain annotated samples added. ResultsWe found continued pretraining improved models only when combined with in-domain annotated samples, improving the F1 score from 0.756 to 0.808, averaged across three datasets. This improvement was equivalent to adding 50.2 in-domain annotated samples. DiscussionAlthough considered a straightforward task when performing in-domain, section classification is still a considerably difficult task when performing cross-domain, even using highly sophisticated neural network-based methods. ConclusionContinued pretraining improved model transferability for cross-domain clinical note section classification in the presence of a small amount of in-domain labeled samples.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.