4.7 Article

Named entity recognition in electronic health records using transfer learning bootstrapped Neural Networks

期刊

NEURAL NETWORKS
卷 121, 期 -, 页码 132-139

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neunet.2019.08.032

关键词

Neural Networks; NLP; Named entity recognition; Electronic health records; Transfer learning; LSTM

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research's (NIHR), United Kingdom Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre [BRC-1215-20005]
  2. UK Clinical Records Interactive Search (UK-CRIS) system - NIHR Oxford Health BRC at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust
  3. Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford
  4. Medical Research Council (MRC), United Kingdom, Pathfinder Grant [MC-PC-17215]
  5. MRC [MC_PC_17215] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neural networks (NNs) have become the state of the art in many machine learning applications, such as image, sound (LeCun et al., 2015) and natural language processing (Young et al., 2017; Linggard et al., 2012). However, the success of NNs remains dependent on the availability of large labelled datasets, such as in the case of electronic health records (EHRs). With scarce data, NNs are unlikely to be able to extract this hidden information with practical accuracy. In this study, we develop an approach that solves these problems for named entity recognition, obtaining 94.6 F1 score in I2B2 2009 Medical Extraction Challenge (Uzuner et al., 2010), 4.3 above the architecture that won the competition. To achieve this, we bootstrap our NN models through transfer learning by pretraining word embeddings on a secondary task performed on a large pool of unannotated EHRs and using the output embeddings as a foundation of a range of NN architectures. Beyond the official I2B2 challenge, we further achieve 82.4 F1 on extracting relationships between medical terms using attention-based seq2seq models bootstrapped in the same manner. Crown Copyright (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据