Distance from Unimodality for the Assessment of Opinion Polarization.

Commonsense knowledge is often approximated by the fraction of annotators who classified an item as belonging to the positive class. Instances for which this fraction is equal to or above 50% are considered positive, including however ones that receive polarized opinions. This is a problematic encoding convention that disregards the potentially polarized nature of opinions and which is often employed to estimate subjectivity, sentiment polarity, and toxic language. We present the distance from unimodality (DFU), a novel measure that estimates the extent of polarization on a distribution of opinions and which correlates well with human judgment. We applied DFU to two use cases. The first case concerns tweets created over 9 months during the pandemic. The second case concerns textual posts crowd-annotated for toxicity. We specified the days for which the sentiment-annotated tweets were determined as polarized based on the DFU measure and we found that polarization occurred on different days for two different states in the USA. Regarding toxicity, we found that polarized opinions are more likely by annotators originating from different countries. Moreover, we show that DFU can be exploited as an objective function to train models to predict whether a post will provoke polarized opinions in the future.

Restoring and attributing ancient texts using deep neural networks.

Ancient history relies on disciplines such as epigraphy-the study of inscribed texts known as inscriptions-for evidence of the thought, language, society and history of past civilizations1. However, over the centuries, many inscriptions have been damaged to the point of illegibility, transported far from their original location and their date of writing is steeped in uncertainty. Here we present Ithaca, a deep neural network for the textual restoration, geographical attribution and chronological attribution of ancient Greek inscriptions. Ithaca is designed to assist and expand the historian's workflow. The architecture of Ithaca focuses on collaboration, decision support and interpretability. While Ithaca alone achieves 62% accuracy when restoring damaged texts, the use of Ithaca by historians improved their accuracy from 25% to 72%, confirming the synergistic effect of this research tool. Ithaca can attribute inscriptions to their original location with an accuracy of 71% and can date them to less than 30 years of their ground-truth ranges, redating key texts of Classical Athens and contributing to topical debates in ancient history. This research shows how models such as Ithaca can unlock the cooperative potential between artificial intelligence and historians, transformationally impacting the way that we study and write about one of the most important periods in human history.

Presenting artificial intelligence, deep learning, and machine learning studies to clinicians and healthcare stakeholders: an introductory reference with a guideline and a Clinical AI Research (CAIR) checklist proposal.

Background and purpose - Artificial intelligence (AI), deep learning (DL), and machine learning (ML) have become common research fields in orthopedics and medicine in general. Engineers perform much of the work. While they gear the results towards healthcare professionals, the difference in competencies and goals creates challenges for collaboration and knowledge exchange. We aim to provide clinicians with a context and understanding of AI research by facilitating communication between creators, researchers, clinicians, and readers of medical AI and ML research.Methods and results - We present the common tasks, considerations, and pitfalls (both methodological and ethical) that clinicians will encounter in AI research. We discuss the following topics: labeling, missing data, training, testing, and overfitting. Common performance and outcome measures for various AI and ML tasks are presented, including accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, Dice score, the area under the curve, and ROC curves. We also discuss ethical considerations in terms of privacy, fairness, autonomy, safety, responsibility, and liability regarding data collecting or sharing.Interpretation - We have developed guidelines for reporting medical AI research to clinicians in the run-up to a broader consensus process. The proposed guidelines consist of a Clinical Artificial Intelligence Research (CAIR) checklist and specific performance metrics guidelines to present and evaluate research using AI components. Researchers, engineers, clinicians, and other stakeholders can use these proposal guidelines and the CAIR checklist to read, present, and evaluate AI research geared towards a healthcare setting.

RTEX: A novel framework for ranking, tagging, and explanatory diagnostic captioning of radiography exams.

OBJECTIVE: The study sought to assist practitioners in identifying and prioritizing radiography exams that are more likely to contain abnormalities, and provide them with a diagnosis in order to manage heavy workload more efficiently (eg, during a pandemic) or avoid mistakes due to tiredness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This article introduces RTEx, a novel framework for (1) ranking radiography exams based on their probability to be abnormal, (2) generating abnormality tags for abnormal exams, and (3) providing a diagnostic explanation in natural language for each abnormal exam. Our framework consists of deep learning and retrieval methods and is assessed on 2 publicly available datasets. RESULTS: For ranking, RTEx outperforms its competitors in terms of nDCG@k. The tagging component outperforms 2 strong competitor methods in terms of F1. Moreover, the diagnostic captioning component, which exploits the predicted tags to constrain the captioning process, outperforms 4 captioning competitors with respect to clinical precision and recall. DISCUSSION: RTEx prioritizes abnormal exams toward the improvement of the healthcare workflow by introducing a ranking method. Also, for each abnormal radiography exam RTEx generates a set of abnormality tags alongside a diagnostic text to explain the tags and guide the medical expert. Human evaluation of the produced text shows that employing the generated tags offers consistency to the clinical correctness and that the sentences of each text have high clinical accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first framework that successfully combines 3 tasks: ranking, tagging, and diagnostic captioning with focus on radiography exams that contain abnormalities.

An overview of the BIOASQ large-scale biomedical semantic indexing and question answering competition.

BACKGROUND: This article provides an overview of the first BIOASQ challenge, a competition on large-scale biomedical semantic indexing and question answering (QA), which took place between March and September 2013. BIOASQ assesses the ability of systems to semantically index very large numbers of biomedical scientific articles, and to return concise and user-understandable answers to given natural language questions by combining information from biomedical articles and ontologies. RESULTS: The 2013 BIOASQ competition comprised two tasks, Task 1a and Task 1b. In Task 1a participants were asked to automatically annotate new PUBMED documents with MESH headings. Twelve teams participated in Task 1a, with a total of 46 system runs submitted, and one of the teams performing consistently better than the MTI indexer used by NLM to suggest MESH headings to curators. Task 1b used benchmark datasets containing 29 development and 282 test English questions, along with gold standard (reference) answers, prepared by a team of biomedical experts from around Europe and participants had to automatically produce answers. Three teams participated in Task 1b, with 11 system runs. The BIOASQ infrastructure, including benchmark datasets, evaluation mechanisms, and the results of the participants and baseline methods, is publicly available. CONCLUSIONS: A publicly available evaluation infrastructure for biomedical semantic indexing and QA has been developed, which includes benchmark datasets, and can be used to evaluate systems that: assign MESH headings to published articles or to English questions; retrieve relevant RDF triples from ontologies, relevant articles and snippets from PUBMED Central; produce "exact" and paragraph-sized "ideal" answers (summaries). The results of the systems that participated in the 2013 BIOASQ competition are promising. In Task 1a one of the systems performed consistently better from the NLM's MTI indexer. In Task 1b the systems received high scores in the manual evaluation of the "ideal" answers; hence, they produced high quality summaries as answers. Overall, BIOASQ helped obtain a unified view of how techniques from text classification, semantic indexing, document and passage retrieval, question answering, and text summarization can be combined to allow biomedical experts to obtain concise, user-understandable answers to questions reflecting their real information needs.