| Literature DB >> 35564995 |
Chenyuan Hu1, Shuoyan Zhang1, Tianyu Gu1, Zhuangzhi Yan2, Jiehui Jiang2.
Abstract
Evidence-based treatment is the basis of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), and the accurate differentiation of syndromes is important for treatment in this context. The automatic differentiation of syndromes of unstructured medical records requires two important steps: Chinese word segmentation and text classification. Due to the ambiguity of the Chinese language and the peculiarities of syndrome differentiation, these tasks pose a daunting challenge. We use text classification to model syndrome differentiation for TCM, and use multi-task learning (MTL) and deep learning to accomplish the two challenging tasks of Chinese word segmentation and syndrome differentiation. Two classic deep neural networks-bidirectional long short-term memory (Bi-LSTM) and text-based convolutional neural networks (TextCNN)-are fused into MTL to simultaneously carry out these two tasks. We used our proposed method to conduct a large number of comparative experiments. The experimental comparisons showed that it was superior to other methods on both tasks. Our model yielded values of accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity of 0.93, 0.94, and 0.90, and 0.80, 0.82, and 0.78 on the Chinese word segmentation task and the syndrome differentiation task, respectively. Moreover, statistical analyses showed that the accuracies of the non-joint and joint models were both within the 95% confidence interval, with pvalue < 0.05. The experimental comparison showed that our method is superior to prevalent methods on both tasks. The work here can help modernize TCM through intelligent differentiation.Entities:
Keywords: deep learning; joint learning; multi-task learning; syndrome differentiation
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35564995 PMCID: PMC9103751 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19095601
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1An overview of our framework.
Figure 2Structure of the segmentation module.
Figure 3Structure of the classification module.
Figure 4An example of data annotation.
Comparative experiments on different loss optimization strategies.
| Strategies | Accuracy | Specificity | Sensitivity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grid Search | 0.7995 | 0.7897 | 0.8133 |
| Dynamic Weight Averaging | 0.7692 | 0.8364 | 0.6733 |
| Uncertainty Weighting | 0.7830 | 0.8037 | 0.7533 |
| Gradient Normalization | 0.8022 | 0.8178 | 0.7800 |
Comparison between our model and previously proposed models.
| Methods | Accuracy | Specificity | Sensitivity |
|---|---|---|---|
| LSTM | 0.8752 | 0.8905 | 0.7925 |
| Bi-LSTM | 0.8536 | 0.8868 | 0.7852 |
| Bi-GRU | 0.8557 | 0.8868 | 0.7778 |
| BERT | 0.9464 | 0.9523 | 0.9116 |
| RoBERTa | 0.7262 | 0.7066 | 0.3730 |
| XLNet | 0.7080 | 0.8406 | 0.2744 |
| JCS | 0.9317 | 0.9436 | 0.8995 |
Comparison between our model and prevalent methods.
| First Stages | Second Stages | Joint/Non-Joint | Accuracy | Specificity | Sensitivity | Time (min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | TextCNN | Non-joint | 0.7348 | 0.7073 | 0.8786 | 3.5 |
| Bi-LSTM | SVM | Non-joint | 0.7521 | 0.7099 | 0.7861 | 14.9 |
| Bi-LSTM | TextRNN | Non-joint | 0.6906 | 0.8671 | 0.5291 | 17.5 |
| Bi-LSTM | TextCNN | Non-joint | 0.7624 | 0.8324 | 0.6984 | 15.9 |
| JCS | Joint | 0.8022 | 0.8178 | 0.7800 | 10 | |
Figure 5ROC curves of the proposed model and the baseline. The values in the legend represent the AUC values, that is, the area under the ROC curve.
Results of comparison with state-of-the-art models.
| Methods | Accuracy | Specificity | Sensitivity | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BERT | 0.7989 | 0.7409 | 0.8647 | 0.8637 |
| RoBERTa | 0.7769 | 0.7353 | 0.8135 | 0.8581 |
| XLNet | 0.5455 | 0.5588 | 0.5338 | 0.5394 |
| JCS | 0.8022 | 0.8178 | 0.7800 | 0.8780 |
Statistical analysis of the two models.
| Models | Accuracy |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bi-LSTM + TextCNN | 0.7624 |
| 0.0281 |
| JCS (joint) | 0.8022 |
Comparative experiments on different modules.
| Segmentation Module | Classification Module | Joint? | Accuracy | Specificity | Sensitivity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bi-LSTM | TextCNN | N | 0.7624 | 0.8324 | 0.6984 |
| Y | 0.8022 | 0.8178 | 0.7800 | ||
| FastText | N | 0.7624 | 0.7142 | 0.8150 | |
| Y | 0.7665 | 0.7336 | 0.8133 | ||
| Bi-LSTM-CRF | TextCNN | N | 0.7541 | 0.8035 | 0.7090 |
| Y | 0.7885 | 0.7733 | 0.7991 | ||
| FastText | N | 0.7735 | 0.8208 | 0.7302 | |
| Y | 0.7885 | 0.8267 | 0.7617 |