Chen Lin1, Steven Bethard2, Dmitriy Dligach3, Farig Sadeque1,4, Guergana Savova1, Timothy A Miller1. 1. Computational Health Informatics Program, Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. School of Information, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA. 3. Department of Computer Science, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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