Search for: All records

Abstract Objective We develop natural language processing (NLP) methods capable of accurately classifying tumor attributes from pathology reports given minimal labeled examples. Our hierarchical cancer to cancer transfer (HCTC) and zero-shot string similarity (ZSS) methods are designed to exploit shared information between cancers and auxiliary class features, respectively, to boost performance using enriched annotations which give both location-based information and document level labels for each pathology report. Materials and Methods Our data consists of 250 pathology reports each for kidney, colon, and lung cancer from 2002 to 2019 from a single institution (UCSF). For each report, we classified 5 attributes: procedure, tumor location, histology, grade, and presence of lymphovascular invasion. We develop novel NLP techniques involving transfer learning and string similarity trained on enriched annotations. We compare HCTC and ZSS methods to the state-of-the-art including conventional machine learning methods as well as deep learning methods. Results For our HCTC method, we see an improvement of up to 0.1 micro-F1 score and 0.04 macro-F1 averaged across cancer and applicable attributes. For our ZSS method, we see an improvement of up to 0.26 micro-F1 and 0.23 macro-F1 averaged across cancer and applicable attributes. These comparisons are made after adjusting training data sizes to correct for the 20% increase in annotation time for enriched annotations compared to ordinary annotations. Conclusions Methods based on transfer learning across cancers and augmenting information methods with string similarity priors can significantly reduce the amount of labeled data needed for accurate information extraction from pathology reports. 

Abstract Objective Cancer is a leading cause of death, but much of the diagnostic information is stored as unstructured data in pathology reports. We aim to improve uncertainty estimates of machine learning-based pathology parsers and evaluate performance in low data settings. Materials and methods Our data comes from the Urologic Outcomes Database at UCSF which includes 3232 annotated prostate cancer pathology reports from 2001 to 2018. We approach 17 separate information extraction tasks, involving a wide range of pathologic features. To handle the diverse range of fields, we required 2 statistical models, a document classification method for pathologic features with a small set of possible values and a token extraction method for pathologic features with a large set of values. For each model, we used isotonic calibration to improve the model’s estimates of its likelihood of being correct. Results Our best document classifier method, a convolutional neural network, achieves a weighted F1 score of 0.97 averaged over 12 fields and our best extraction method achieves an accuracy of 0.93 averaged over 5 fields. The performance saturates as a function of dataset size with as few as 128 data points. Furthermore, while our document classifier methods have reliable uncertainty estimates, our extraction-based methods do not, but after isotonic calibration, expected calibration error drops to below 0.03 for all extraction fields. Conclusions We find that when applying machine learning to pathology parsing, large datasets may not always be needed, and that calibration methods can improve the reliability of uncertainty estimates. 

Building on Yu and Kumbier's predictability, computability and stability (PCS) framework and for randomised experiments, we introduce a novel methodology for Stable Discovery of Interpretable Subgroups via Calibration (StaDISC), with large heterogeneous treatment effects. StaDISC was developed during our re‐analysis of the 1999–2000 VIGOR study, an 8076‐patient randomised controlled trial that compared the risk of adverse events from a then newly approved drug, rofecoxib (Vioxx), with that from an older drug naproxen. Vioxx was found to, on average and in comparison with naproxen, reduce the risk of gastrointestinal events but increase the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events. Applying StaDISC, we fit 18 popular conditional average treatment effect (CATE) estimators for both outcomes and use calibration to demonstrate their poor global performance. However, they are locally well‐calibrated and stable, enabling the identification of patient groups with larger than (estimated) average treatment effects. In fact, StaDISC discovers three clinically interpretable subgroups each for the gastrointestinal outcome (totalling 29.4% of the study size) and the thrombotic cardiovascular outcome (totalling 11.0%). Complementary analyses of the found subgroups using the 2001–2004 APPROVe study, a separate independently conducted randomised controlled trial with 2587 patients, provide further supporting evidence for the promise of StaDISC.