Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Objectives Active learning (AL) has rarely integrated diversity-based and uncertainty-based strategies into a dynamic sampling framework for clinical named entity recognition (NER). Machine-assisted annotation is becoming popular for creating gold-standard labels. This study investigated the effectiveness of dynamic AL strategies under simulated machine-assisted annotation scenarios for clinical NER. Materials and Methods We proposed 3 new AL strategies: a diversity-based strategy (CLUSTER) based on Sentence-BERT and 2 dynamic strategies (CLC and CNBSE) capable of switching from diversity-based to uncertainty-based strategies. Using BioClinicalBERT as the foundational NER model, we conducted simulation experiments on 3 medication-related clinical NER datasets independently: i2b2 2009, n2c2 2018 (Track 2), and MADE 1.0. We compared the proposed strategies with uncertainty-based (LC and NBSE) and passive-learning (RANDOM) strategies. Performance was primarily measured by the number of edits made by the annotators to achieve a desired target effectiveness evaluated on independent test sets. Results When aiming for 98% overall target effectiveness, on average, CLUSTER required the fewest edits. When aiming for 99% overall target effectiveness, CNBSE required 20.4% fewer edits than NBSE did. CLUSTER and RANDOM could not achieve such a high target under the pool-based simulation experiment. For high-difficulty entities, CNBSE required 22.5% fewer edits than NBSE to achieve 99% target effectiveness, whereas neither CLUSTER nor RANDOM achieved 93% target effectiveness. Discussion and Conclusion When the target effectiveness was set high, the proposed dynamic strategy CNBSE exhibited both strong learning capabilities and low annotation costs in machine-assisted annotation. CLUSTER required the fewest edits when the target effectiveness was set low.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: