NPRF: A Neural Pseudo Relevance Feedback Framework for Ad-hoc Information Retrieval

Pseudo-relevance feedback (PRF) is commonly used to boost the performance of traditional information retrieval (IR) models by using top-ranked documents to identify and weight new query terms, thereby reducing the effect of query-document vocabulary mismatches. While neural retrieval models have recently demonstrated strong results for ad-hoc retrieval, combining them with PRF is not straightforward due to incompatibilities between existing PRF approaches and neural architectures. To bridge this gap, we propose an end-to-end neural PRF framework that can be used with existing neural IR models by embedding different neural models as building blocks. Extensive experiments on two standard test collections confirm the effectiveness of the proposed NPRF framework in improving the performance of two state-of-the-art neural IR models.Comment: Full paper in EMNLP 201

Using Machine Learning and Natural Language Processing to Review and Classify the Medical Literature on Cancer Susceptibility Genes

PURPOSE: The medical literature relevant to germline genetics is growing exponentially. Clinicians need tools monitoring and prioritizing the literature to understand the clinical implications of the pathogenic genetic variants. We developed and evaluated two machine learning models to classify abstracts as relevant to the penetrance (risk of cancer for germline mutation carriers) or prevalence of germline genetic mutations. METHODS: We conducted literature searches in PubMed and retrieved paper titles and abstracts to create an annotated dataset for training and evaluating the two machine learning classification models. Our first model is a support vector machine (SVM) which learns a linear decision rule based on the bag-of-ngrams representation of each title and abstract. Our second model is a convolutional neural network (CNN) which learns a complex nonlinear decision rule based on the raw title and abstract. We evaluated the performance of the two models on the classification of papers as relevant to penetrance or prevalence. RESULTS: For penetrance classification, we annotated 3740 paper titles and abstracts and used 60% for training the model, 20% for tuning the model, and 20% for evaluating the model. The SVM model achieves 89.53% accuracy (percentage of papers that were correctly classified) while the CNN model achieves 88.95 % accuracy. For prevalence classification, we annotated 3753 paper titles and abstracts. The SVM model achieves 89.14% accuracy while the CNN model achieves 89.13 % accuracy. CONCLUSION: Our models achieve high accuracy in classifying abstracts as relevant to penetrance or prevalence. By facilitating literature review, this tool could help clinicians and researchers keep abreast of the burgeoning knowledge of gene-cancer associations and keep the knowledge bases for clinical decision support tools up to date

Ranking Significant Discrepancies in Clinical Reports

Medical errors are a major public health concern and a leading cause of death worldwide. Many healthcare centers and hospitals use reporting systems where medical practitioners write a preliminary medical report and the report is later reviewed, revised, and finalized by a more experienced physician. The revisions range from stylistic to corrections of critical errors or misinterpretations of the case. Due to the large quantity of reports written daily, it is often difficult to manually and thoroughly review all the finalized reports to find such errors and learn from them. To address this challenge, we propose a novel ranking approach, consisting of textual and ontological overlaps between the preliminary and final versions of reports. The approach learns to rank the reports based on the degree of discrepancy between the versions. This allows medical practitioners to easily identify and learn from the reports in which their interpretation most substantially differed from that of the attending physician (who finalized the report). This is a crucial step towards uncovering potential errors and helping medical practitioners to learn from such errors, thus improving patient-care in the long run. We evaluate our model on a dataset of radiology reports and show that our approach outperforms both previously-proposed approaches and more recent language models by 4.5% to 15.4%.Comment: ECIR 2020 (short