Back

Multi-Task Learning and Soft-Label Supervision for Psychosocial Burden Profiling in Cancer Peer-Support Text

Wang, Z.; Cao, Y.; Shen, X.; Ding, Z.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Y.

2026-04-04 health informatics
10.64898/2026.04.03.26350034 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objective: Online cancer peer-support text contains signals of psychosocial burden beyond emotional tone, including treatment burden, financial strain, uncertainty, and unmet support needs. We evaluated 2 modeling extensions: multi-task learning (MTL) for joint prediction of health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) burden dimensions, and soft-label supervision using large language model (LLM)-derived probability distributions. Materials and Methods: We analyzed 10,392 cancer peer-support posts. GPT-4o-mini generated proxy annotations for HEOR burden subscales, composite burden, high-need status, speaker role, cancer type, and emotion probabilities. Study 1 trained a shared ALBERT encoder under 4 MTL conditions: composite and subscale burden targets, each with and without auxiliary heads, using Kendall uncertainty weighting. Study 2 compared soft-label training on LLM emotion distributions with hard-label baselines under regular and token-augmented inputs, evaluating performance against both human labels and AI distributions. Results: Composite-only MTL achieved R2=0.446 for burden regression and weighted F1=0.810 for high-need screening; subscale classification achieved mean weighted F1=0.646. Adding auxiliary role and cancer-type heads reduced regression performance ({triangleup}R2 = -0.209). Soft-label training reduced weighted F1 by 0.16 versus hard-label baselines (0.68 vs. 0.86), and token augmentation did not improve performance under soft supervision. Discussion: Composite-only MTL supported modeling of multidimensional burden-related signals from forum text, whereas auxiliary prediction heads appeared to compete with primary tasks. Soft-label training aligned poorly with human-labeled emotion categories, suggesting that uncalibrated LLM distributions may propagate bias rather than improve supervision. Conclusion: Composite-only MTL was the strongest burden-modeling approach, and hard-label supervision remained preferable for emotion classification.

Matching journals

The top 4 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.