<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Incorporating Statistical Topic Models in the retrieval of healthcare documents</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Karla L Caballero Barajas</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Ram Akella</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>University of California Berkeley</institution>
          ,
          <country country="US">USA</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>University of California Santa Cruz</institution>
          ,
          <country country="US">USA</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>We present a framework based on Statistical Topics Models, Language Models, Information Extraction, and Ontology Analysis to retrieve healthcare related documents for the CLEF eHealth 2013 Task 3. In this framework we add global information based on latent topics from the documents to improve the document retrieval. We perform six different experiments which consist of a baseline and six variants of the model. Preliminary results show that the use of Language Models with a bag of words scheme results better estimates. However model tunning in the Topic Based model is required to achieve optimal results.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>In these notes we describe the experimental framework presented in the CLEF
eHealth 2013 Task 3 which consist of retrieving relevant health care documents.
Our main approach consist of providing a solution that does not require any
manual input besides the query.</p>
      <p>To achieve this goal, we captured global context from the documents in a
unsupervised form using Statistical Topic Models. Our main hypothesis is that
semantic content may not be correctly represented with single terms alone. In
addition, we present a variant of the model where we extract noun phrases and
incorporate them in the query. We claim that using the words independently
may change the meaning of the query specially when the user is searching
documents from a particular disease that is composed by two or more terms. For
instance, cardiac disease might not be correctly detected as a noun phrase and
the independent term disease would largely increase the documents retrieved
with other types of diseases.</p>
      <p>This paper is divided as follows: Section 2 shows the methodology that we
follow and how we obtain the different components of the propose model. In
section 3 we describe the steps we follow to pre-process the corpus, and we
describe the different experiments that we performed. Finally the results and
conclusion are discussed.
such as the extraction of topics using Statistical Topic Models and the noun
phrases extraction. In addition, we detail the incorporation and processing of
the discharge summaries in the model.
2.1</p>
      <sec id="sec-1-1">
        <title>Statistical Topic Modeling</title>
        <p>
          Statistical Topic Models is an unsupervised learning technique that allows us
to extract latent topics from a corpus of documents. The fundamental idea is
that these topics provide a global context, which can not be achieved using only
independent words as in the standard bag-of-words modeling. For the current
problem, we use Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
          ]. In this model, each
document is defined as a mixture of topics and each topic is defined as a mixture
of words with a given probability. The most dominant topics in the document
are those with highest estimated probability. Similarly, the higher the
probability the more important the word is in the topic. All these probabilities are
estimated during the model fitting process, which is usually performed using
Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques such as collapsed Gibbs
sampling. In this model, we choose the prior distribution parameters that optimizes
the augmented likelihood that is defined as follows:
p(w, z|α, β) = p(w|z, β)p(z|α)
(1)
        </p>
        <p>Where and w is the word, z is the topic label and α and β are the parameters
of the prior distribution for the topic mixture and vocabulary mixture
respectively. To fit the LDA model with the corpus of healthcare documents we need
to select the number of topics. The two parameter vectors that are fitted in the
model are the prior distribution vectors for the probability of topics in a
document, and the global probability of words given a topic. With these parameters
we obtain the topic mixture for each document and save it as metadata that is
used in the document retrieval.
2.2</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-1-2">
        <title>Noun Phrases Extraction</title>
        <p>
          Noun phrases provide relevant information about diseases and treatments
usually. This is because several diseases are often identified by two or more terms. In
order to select accurately the noun phrases, we use the CTAKES [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
          ] extraction
tool that uses medical domain ontology such as SNOMED [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
          ]. We extract all the
nouns from the set of discharge summaries of the MIMIC II [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
          ] data. By using
this dataset, we are able to find a typical set of clinical nouns used in discharge
summaries.
        </p>
        <p>We select the extracted nouns with two or more words since these nouns are
not detected by the bag-of-words model. Note that some of the resulting noun
phrases are combinations of two of more shorter phrases. We select only those
with the smallest number of terms. Then, we analyze if a long noun phrase can
be decomposed as a combination of the shortest noun phrases. If this is the
case then we ignore this phrase. If this is not the case, we keep the full noun
phrase. We remove the phrases which do not include any medical content. To
determine if the medical content of the phrases, we compare the extracted nouns
with the SNOMED ontologies in order to keep the ones inside the ontology. We
obtain 3, 075 noun phrases using 10, 000 discharge summaries from patients with
different diseases.
2.3</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-1-3">
        <title>Discharge Summaries</title>
        <p>We include the discharge summaries information in three of the six experiments
we perform. However, when we reviewed the content of the discharge summaries,
some of them have little of not relevance with the query. To overcome this
problem. We only take into account those paragraphs with significant relation
to the query.</p>
        <p>We determine this relationship in a unsupervised form by comparing the
query terms with the content of the paragraph. We found that only a small
percentage of the discharge summaries contains information related to the query,
which ranges from 1 to 3 paragraphs, compared to the average discharge
summary length of 10 to 20 paragraphs. In some cases only a sentence in the entire
summary has a relationship with the query. The extracted information from
these summaries is combined with the orignal query in order to create a single
expanded query.
2.4</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-1-4">
        <title>Retrieval Method</title>
        <p>We use Language Models to retrieve the documents. In this framework, we
estimate the probability that the query is generated by the document. This
probability is represented by the following formula:
(2)
(3)
(4)
m
P (Q|θD) = Y p(qi|D)</p>
        <p>i
P (qi|D) =
c(qi, D)
|D|
where P (qi|D) is the probability that the query term is generated by the
document, and this is defined as:
here c(qi, D) is the frequency of the query word in the document and |D| is the
total number of terms in the document. In this method, we might find a zero
probability for P (qi|D) when we have a term in the query that is not inside
the document. To overcome this problem, we incorporate a smooth factor in the
probability P (qi|D) that is defined as follows:
c(qi|D)</p>
        <p>
          |D|
P (qi|D) = λ
+ (1 − λ)P (qi|C)
where P (qi|C) is the probability that the query word is in the collection. The
value of λ ranges from [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">0 − 1</xref>
          ]. For the experiments, we define this value to be
0.5.
        </p>
        <p>
          We include the topic information by using the framework introduced in [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
          ],
which consist of adding Plda(qi|D, θD, φ) to the existing language model. This
addition is defined as follows:
        </p>
        <p>K
Plda(qi|D, θD, φ) = X p(w|z, φ)p(z|θ, D)
z=1
(5)
where K is the number of topics, φ is the posterior probability estimate of the
word mixture for each topic, and θ is the topic mixture for the document. Then
the language model is defined as follows:
P (qi|D) = λ(</p>
        <p>Nd c(qi|D)
μ + Nd |D|
+ (1 −</p>
        <p>Nd
μ + Nd
)P (qi|C)) + (1 − λ)(Plda(qi|D, θD, φ))
(6)
The value of μ is defined as 1 and Nd is the number of documents. The value
of λ is defined to be 0.6. The noun phrases are included in the model as any
other word. Consequently, the frequency of those phrases in a document is used
to represent the documents.
3
3.1</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Experimental Settings</title>
      <sec id="sec-2-1">
        <title>Dataset Preprocessing</title>
        <p>
          We use the corpus of medical-related documents provided by the Khresmoi
project. Details of the dataset are found in [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
          ]. We pre-processed the
documents in the following manner: First we extract the text from the document
by removing the html tags and headers. Then, we remove special and foreign
characters by converting all the characters in UTF8 format. With this step we
ensure that all the words are in English format. Subsequently we remove all the
numbers from the document.
        </p>
        <p>
          After the data has been cleaned, we indexed all the documents using Indri
index engine from Lemur Project [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
          ]. Here we perform stemming of the words
using the Krovetz stemmer. In addition, common words are removed in the
indexing step.
        </p>
        <p>We have 1628500 documents and a vocabulary size of 98031 after removing
documents with less than 20 terms, removing stop words and stemming when
we use the bag of words approach. When we use the noun phrases, we replace
the noun phrase found in the document with a term code used as a word, and
then we index the documents. With this variant we have a vocabulary size of
99538 and 1628500 documents</p>
        <p>Once we have indexed all the data, we fit the model using 10% of the
documents in the corpus and 75 topics. We select those documents randomly. This
allow us to model the corpus more accurate. Once we estimate the prior
distribution parameters, we extract the topic content for the remaining documents by
sampling the labels for each word in the document using Gibbs Sampling and
the prior distribution of the word mixture. Once we have estimated the label
for each word, we calculate the topic mixture for each document and save it a
metadata in the document. Therefore we have two sets of topic mixtures: one
only taking into account the single terms and other that takes into account the
noun phrases.</p>
        <p>We analyze the queries by parsing them using the constructed index and we
remove the stop words. If we use noun phrases, we first replace them with a term
code and then we parsed with the index from the document and remove the stop
words.
3.2</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-2">
        <title>Description of the Experiments</title>
        <p>We submit six different runnings to the task: one baseline and five variants of
the model. In this section we describe each of the variants of the model.</p>
        <p>We use as baseline the language models described in equation 4 with only
the single terms, and without any noun phrases. This method is considered to
be the baseline for the other variants of the model.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-3">
        <title>Variants of the model</title>
        <p>We have 5 variants of the model:
1. Including the information from the Discharge summaries and noun phrases
using Probabilistic Topic Modeling and Language Models defined in equation
6.
2. We use noun phrases with the queries that contain the information of the</p>
        <p>Discharge summaries and using only Language Models
3. Language Models and the information extracted from Discharge Summaries
without any noun phrases
4. Language models with noun phrases and topic information using only the
queries
5. Language models with noun phrases without any information of the
discharge summaries</p>
        <p>The main idea is to test how the different components contribute to the global
result. All the variants are fast in the retrieval process. The main constrain is
the offline process that they require.
4</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Results</title>
      <p>In this section we will discuss the results of all the variants of the model that
we run. Table 1 shows the results of the Precision at 10 (P@10), Mean Average
Precision (MAP) and the Normalised Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG) for
the baseline and the five variants of the model</p>
      <p>As we can observe the baseline results in better results than the variants.
This can be explained by the nature of the query. In this case the use of noun
phrases (Variant 5) may help in some queries but in others affect the result. We
observe that the use of Topics does not improve the performance of the method,
which may be cause because the topics may add noise to the query instead of
clarifying the query. This phenomena could be caused by the number of topics,
which are not sufficient to describe correctly the corpus. Other explanation is
that some results retrieved by the method may not be labeled. This may result
in a poor performance of the methods.</p>
      <p>Figure 1 shows the precision results for all the queries using the best method
(baseline). Here we can observe that the precision of some queries is negative.
This means that the baseline have lower performance that the median of the
other groups. However some other queries has a comparable performance of the
best groups.
5</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Conclusion References</title>
      <p>In this paper we presented a method to retrieve relevant health care related
document. We believe that our approach have promising results. Further research
and model tunning may be required in order to make our approach competitive
and suitable to be applied in the healthcare context.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Blei</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Ng</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Jordan</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Latent dirichlet allocation</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of Machine Learning</source>
          ,
          <volume>3</volume>
          :
          <fpage>993</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1022</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2003</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2. University of Massachusetts and Carnegie Mellon University. The lemur project,
          <year>2010</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Saeed</surname>
          </string-name>
          , G. Lieu, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R. G.</given-names>
            <surname>Mark. MIMIC II</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>: a massive temporal icu patient database to support research in intelligent patient monitoring</article-title>
          .
          <source>Computers in Cardiology</source>
          ,
          <volume>29</volume>
          :
          <fpage>641</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>644</lpage>
          ,
          <year>September 2002</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Guergana</surname>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Savova</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>James J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Masanz</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Philip</surname>
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ogren</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Jiaping Zheng, Sunghwan Sohn, Karin C.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kipper-Schuler</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and Christopher G. Chute.
          <article-title>Mayo clinical text analysis and knowledge extraction system (cTAKES): architecture, component evaluation and applications</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association</source>
          ,
          <volume>17</volume>
          (
          <issue>5</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>507</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>513</lpage>
          ,
          <year>September 2010</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kent</surname>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Spackman</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ph</surname>
          </string-name>
          . D, Keith E. Campbell,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ph</surname>
          </string-name>
          . D,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Roger</surname>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Cote</surname>
            , and
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sc</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>(hon). SNOMED RT: A reference terminology for health care</article-title>
          .
          <source>In J. of the American Medical Informatics Association</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>640</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>644</lpage>
          ,
          <year>1997</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Hanna</given-names>
            <surname>Suominen</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Sanna Salanter¨a,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sumithra</surname>
            <given-names>Velupillai</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Wendy W. Chapman, Guergana Savova, Noemie Elhadad, Danielle Mowery, Johannes Leveling, Lorraine Goeuriot, Liadh Kelly, David Martinez,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>and Guido</given-names>
            <surname>Zuccon</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Overview of the ShARe/CLEF eHealth Evaluation Lab 2013</article-title>
          .
          <source>In CLEF 2013, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS)</source>
          . Springer,
          <year>2013</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Xing</given-names>
            <surname>Wei</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>W. Bruce</given-names>
            <surname>Croft</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Lda-based document models for ad-hoc retrieval</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 29th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>178</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>185</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>