Automated methods have been widely used to identify and analyze mental health conditions (e.g., depression) from various sources of information, including social media.Yet, deployment of such models in real-world healthcare applications faces challenges including poor out-of-domain generalization and lack of trust in black box models.In this work, we propose approaches for depression detection that are constrained to different degrees by the presence of symptoms described in PHQ9, a questionnaire used by clinicians in the depression screening process.In dataset-transfer experiments on three social media datasets, we find that grounding the model in PHQ9's symptoms substantially improves its ability to generalize to out-of-distribution data compared to a standard BERT-based approach.Furthermore, this approach can still perform competitively on indomain data.These results and our qualitative analyses suggest that grounding model predictions in clinically-relevant symptoms can improve generalizability while producing a model that is easier to inspect.

Quality assurance (QA) is an essential though underdeveloped part of the data annotation process. Although QA is supported to some extent in existing annotation tools, comprehensive support for QA is not standardly provided. In this paper we contribute QA4IE, a comprehensive QA tool for information extraction, which can (1) detect potential problems in text annotations in a timely manner, (2) accurately assess the quality of annotations, (3) visually display and summarize annotation discrepancies among annotation team members, (4) provide a comprehensive statistics report, and (5) support viewing of annotated documents interactively. This paper offers a competitive analysis comparing QA4IE and other popular annotation tools and demonstrates its features, usage, and effectiveness through a case study. The Python code, documentation, and demonstration video are available publicly at https://github.com/CC-RMD-EpiBio/QA4IE.

Whole-person functional limitations in the areas of mobility, self-care and domestic life affect a majority of individuals with disabilities. Detecting, recording and monitoring such limitations would benefit those individuals, as well as research on whole-person functioning and general public health. Dictionaries of terms related to whole-person function would enable automated identification and extraction of relevant information. However, no such terminologies currently exist, due in part to a lack of standardized coding and their availability mainly in free text clinical notes. In this paper, we introduce terminologies of whole-person function in the domains of mobility, self-care and domestic life, built and evaluated using a small set of manually annotated clinical notes, which provided a seedset that was expanded using a mix of lexical and deep learning approaches.

OBJECTIVES: Normalizing mentions of medical concepts to standardized vocabularies is a fundamental component of clinical text analysis. Ambiguity-words or phrases that may refer to different concepts-has been extensively researched as part of information extraction from biomedical literature, but less is known about the types and frequency of ambiguity in clinical text. This study characterizes the distribution and distinct types of ambiguity exhibited by benchmark clinical concept normalization datasets, in order to identify directions for advancing medical concept normalization research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified ambiguous strings in datasets derived from the 2 available clinical corpora for concept normalization and categorized the distinct types of ambiguity they exhibited. We then compared observed string ambiguity in the datasets with potential ambiguity in the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) to assess how representative available datasets are of ambiguity in clinical language. RESULTS: We found that <15% of strings were ambiguous within the datasets, while over 50% were ambiguous in the UMLS, indicating only partial coverage of clinical ambiguity. The percentage of strings in common between any pair of datasets ranged from 2% to only 36%; of these, 40% were annotated with different sets of concepts, severely limiting generalization. Finally, we observed 12 distinct types of ambiguity, distributed unequally across the available datasets, reflecting diverse linguistic and medical phenomena. DISCUSSION: Existing datasets are not sufficient to cover the diversity of clinical concept ambiguity, limiting both training and evaluation of normalization methods for clinical text. Additionally, the UMLS offers important semantic information for building and evaluating normalization methods. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings identify 3 opportunities for concept normalization research, including a need for ambiguity-specific clinical datasets and leveraging the rich semantics of the UMLS in new methods and evaluation measures for normalization.

Mental health is a significant and growing public health concern. As language usage can be leveraged to obtain crucial insights into mental health conditions, there is a need for large-scale, labeled, mental health-related datasets of users who have been diagnosed with one or more of such conditions. In this paper, we investigate the creation of high-precision patterns to identify self-reported diagnoses of nine different mental health conditions, and obtain high-quality labeled data without the need for manual labelling. We introduce the SMHD (Self-reported Mental Health Diagnoses) dataset and make it available. SMHD is a novel large dataset of social media posts from users with one or multiple mental health conditions along with matched control users. We examine distinctions in users’ language, as measured by linguistic and psychological variables. We further explore text classification methods to identify individuals with mental conditions through their language.

As social media constitutes a valuable source for data analysis for a wide range of applications, the need for handling such data arises. However, the nonstandard language used on social media poses problems for natural language processing (NLP) tools, as these are typically trained on standard language material. We propose a text normalization approach to tackle this problem. More specifically, we investigate the usefulness of a multimodular approach to account for the diversity of normalization issues encountered in user-generated content (UGC). We consider three different types of UGC written in Dutch (SNS, SMS, and tweets) and provide a detailed analysis of the performance of the different modules and the overall system. We also apply an extrinsic evaluation by evaluating the performance of a part-of-speech tagger, lemmatizer, and named-entity recognizer before and after normalization.

Abstract While human annotation is crucial for many natural language processing tasks, it is often very expensive and time-consuming. Inspired by previous work on crowdsourcing, we investigate the viability of using non-expert labels instead of gold standard annotations from experts for a machine learning approach to automatic readability prediction. In order to do so, we evaluate two different methodologies to assess the readability of a wide variety of text material: A more traditional setup in which expert readers make readability judgments and a crowdsourcing setup for users who are not necessarily experts. To this purpose two assessment tools were implemented: a tool where expert readers can rank a batch of texts based on readability, and a lightweight crowdsourcing tool, which invites users to provide pairwise comparisons. To validate this approach, readability assessments for a corpus of written Dutch generic texts were gathered. By collecting multiple assessments per text, we explicitly wanted to level out readers' background knowledge and attitude. Our findings show that the assessments collected through both methodologies are highly consistent and that crowdsourcing is a viable alternative to expert labeling. This is a good news as crowdsourcing is more lightweight to use and can have access to a much wider audience of potential annotators. By performing a set of basic machine learning experiments using a feature set that mainly encodes basic lexical and morpho-syntactic information, we further illustrate how the collected data can be used to perform text comparisons or to assign an absolute readability score to an individual text. We do not focus on optimising the algorithms to achieve the best possible results for the learning tasks, but carry them out to illustrate the various possibilities of our data sets. The results on different data sets, however, show that our system outperforms the readability formulas and a baseline language modelling approach. We conclude that readability assessment by comparing texts is a polyvalent methodology, which can be adapted to specific domains and target audiences if required.