Literature DB >> 32044989

Does BERT need domain adaptation for clinical negation detection?

Chen Lin1, Steven Bethard2, Dmitriy Dligach3, Farig Sadeque1,4, Guergana Savova1, Timothy A Miller1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Classifying whether concepts in an unstructured clinical text are negated is an important unsolved task. New domain adaptation and transfer learning methods can potentially address this issue.
OBJECTIVE: We examine neural unsupervised domain adaptation methods, introducing a novel combination of domain adaptation with transformer-based transfer learning methods to improve negation detection. We also want to better understand the interaction between the widely used bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) system and domain adaptation methods.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We use 4 clinical text datasets that are annotated with negation status. We evaluate a neural unsupervised domain adaptation algorithm and BERT, a transformer-based model that is pretrained on massive general text datasets. We develop an extension to BERT that uses domain adversarial training, a neural domain adaptation method that adds an objective to the negation task, that the classifier should not be able to distinguish between instances from 2 different domains.
RESULTS: The domain adaptation methods we describe show positive results, but, on average, the best performance is obtained by plain BERT (without the extension). We provide evidence that the gains from BERT are likely not additive with the gains from domain adaptation. DISCUSSION: Our results suggest that, at least for the task of clinical negation detection, BERT subsumes domain adaptation, implying that BERT is already learning very general representations of negation phenomena such that fine-tuning even on a specific corpus does not lead to much overfitting.
CONCLUSION: Despite being trained on nonclinical text, the large training sets of models like BERT lead to large gains in performance for the clinical negation detection task.
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Keywords:  deep learning; domain adaptation; machine learning; natural language processing; negation

Year:  2020        PMID: 32044989      PMCID: PMC7075528          DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocaa001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc        ISSN: 1067-5027            Impact factor:   4.497


  10 in total

1.  A simple algorithm for identifying negated findings and diseases in discharge summaries.

Authors:  W W Chapman; W Bridewell; P Hanbury; G F Cooper; B G Buchanan
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 6.317

2.  2010 i2b2/VA challenge on concepts, assertions, and relations in clinical text.

Authors:  Özlem Uzuner; Brett R South; Shuying Shen; Scott L DuVall
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2011-06-16       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  DEEPEN: A negation detection system for clinical text incorporating dependency relation into NegEx.

Authors:  Saeed Mehrabi; Anand Krishnan; Sunghwan Sohn; Alexandra M Roch; Heidi Schmidt; Joe Kesterson; Chris Beesley; Paul Dexter; C Max Schmidt; Hongfang Liu; Mathew Palakal
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2015-03-16       Impact factor: 6.317

4.  Enhancing clinical concept extraction with contextual embeddings.

Authors:  Yuqi Si; Jingqi Wang; Hua Xu; Kirk Roberts
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 5.  Clinical information extraction applications: A literature review.

Authors:  Yanshan Wang; Liwei Wang; Majid Rastegar-Mojarad; Sungrim Moon; Feichen Shen; Naveed Afzal; Sijia Liu; Yuqun Zeng; Saeed Mehrabi; Sunghwan Sohn; Hongfang Liu
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2017-11-21       Impact factor: 6.317

6.  ConText: an algorithm for determining negation, experiencer, and temporal status from clinical reports.

Authors:  Henk Harkema; John N Dowling; Tyler Thornblade; Wendy W Chapman
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2009-05-10       Impact factor: 6.317

7.  Dependency Parser-based Negation Detection in Clinical Narratives.

Authors:  Sunghwan Sohn; Stephen Wu; Christopher G Chute
Journal:  AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc       Date:  2012-03-19

8.  Negation's not solved: generalizability versus optimizability in clinical natural language processing.

Authors:  Stephen Wu; Timothy Miller; James Masanz; Matt Coarr; Scott Halgrim; David Carrell; Cheryl Clark
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Towards comprehensive syntactic and semantic annotations of the clinical narrative.

Authors:  Daniel Albright; Arrick Lanfranchi; Anwen Fredriksen; William F Styler; Colin Warner; Jena D Hwang; Jinho D Choi; Dmitriy Dligach; Rodney D Nielsen; James Martin; Wayne Ward; Martha Palmer; Guergana K Savova
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2013-01-25       Impact factor: 4.497

10.  MIMIC-III, a freely accessible critical care database.

Authors:  Alistair E W Johnson; Tom J Pollard; Lu Shen; Li-Wei H Lehman; Mengling Feng; Mohammad Ghassemi; Benjamin Moody; Peter Szolovits; Leo Anthony Celi; Roger G Mark
Journal:  Sci Data       Date:  2016-05-24       Impact factor: 6.444

  10 in total
  2 in total

1.  DI++: A deep learning system for patient condition identification in clinical notes.

Authors:  Jinhe Shi; Xiangyu Gao; William C Kinsman; Chenyu Ha; Guodong Gordon Gao; Yi Chen
Journal:  Artif Intell Med       Date:  2021-12-02       Impact factor: 5.326

2.  Text Mining of Adverse Events in Clinical Trials: Deep Learning Approach.

Authors:  Daphne Chopard; Matthias S Treder; Padraig Corcoran; Nagheen Ahmed; Claire Johnson; Monica Busse; Irena Spasic
Journal:  JMIR Med Inform       Date:  2021-12-24
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.