Barrett, The Honors College Thesis/Creative Project Collection
Barrett, The Honors College at Arizona State University proudly showcases the work of undergraduate honors students by sharing this collection exclusively with the ASU community.
Barrett accepts high performing, academically engaged undergraduate students and works with them in collaboration with all of the other academic units at Arizona State University. All Barrett students complete a thesis or creative project which is an opportunity to explore an intellectual interest and produce an original piece of scholarly research. The thesis or creative project is supervised and defended in front of a faculty committee. Students are able to engage with professors who are nationally recognized in their fields and committed to working with honors students. Completing a Barrett thesis or creative project is an opportunity for undergraduate honors students to contribute to the ASU academic community in a meaningful way.
Filtering by
- Creators: College of Health Solutions
further process output from a machine learning based named entity recognition (NER) tool for the purposes of (1) linking references to radiological images with the corresponding clinical findings and (2) extracting primary and incidental findings.
Methods: The project’s system utilized a regular expression to extract image references. All CTPA reports were first processed with NER software to obtain the text and spans of clinical findings. A heuristic was used to determine the appropriate clinical finding that should be linked with a particular image reference. Another regular expression was used to extract primary findings from NER output; the remaining findings were considered incidental. Performance was
assessed against a gold standard, which was based upon a manually annotated version of the CTPA reports used in this project.
Results: Extraction of image references achieved a 100% accuracy. Linkages between these references and exact gold standard spans of the clinical findings achieved a precision of 0.24, a recall of 0.22, and an F1 score of 0.23. Linkages with partial spans of clinical findings as determined by the gold standard achieved a precision of 0.71, a recall of 0.67, and an F1 score of 0.69. Primary and incidental finding extraction achieved a precision of 0.67, a recall of 0.80, and
an F1 score of 0.73.
Discussion: Various elements reduced system performance such as the difficulty of exactly matching the spans of clinical findings from NER output with those found in the gold standard. The heuristic linking clinical findings and image references was especially sensitive to NER false positives and false negatives due to its assumption that the appropriate clinical finding was that which was immediately prior to the image reference. Although the system did not perform as well as hoped, lessons were learned such as the need for clear research methodology and proper gold standard creation; without a proper gold standard, problem scope and system performance cannot be properly assessed. Improvements to the system include creating a more robust heuristic, sifting NER false positives, and training the NER tool used on a dataset of CTPA reports.
Methods: The standard NLP process was used for this study in which a gold standard was reached through matched paired annotations of the forum text in brat and a neural network was trained on the content. Following the annotation process, adjudication occurred to increase the inter-annotator agreement. Categories were developed by local physicians to describe the questions and three pilots were run to test the best way to categorize the questions.
Results: The inter-annotator agreement, calculated via F-score, before adjudication for a 0.7 threshold was 0.378 for the annotation activity. After adjudication at a threshold of 0.7, the inter-annotator agreement increased to 0.560. Pilots 1, 2, and 3 of the categorization activity had an inter-annotator agreement of 0.375, 0.5, and 0.966 respectively.
Discussion: The inter-annotator agreement of the annotation activity may have been low initially since the annotators were students who may have not been as invested in the project as necessary to accurately annotate the text. Also, as everyone interprets the text slightly differently, it is possible that that contributed to the differences in the matched pairs’ annotations. The F-score variation for the categorization activity partially had to do with different delivery systems of the instructions and partially with the area of study of the participants. The first pilot did not mandate the use of the original context located in brat and the instructions were provided in the form of a downloadable document. The participants were computer science graduate students. The second pilot also had the instructions delivered via a document, but it was strongly suggested that the context be used to gain an understanding of the questions’ meanings. The participants were also computer science graduate students who upon a discussion of their results after the pilot expressed that they did not have a good understanding of the medical jargon in the posts. The final pilot used a combination of students with and without medical background, required to use the context, and included verbal instructions in combination with the written ones. The combination of these factors increased the F-score significantly. For a full-scale experiment, students with a medical background should be used to categorize the questions.
On average, children from low socioeconomic backgrounds tend to eat around half of their fruit and vegetable intake from the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). If it weren’t for this national program, the majority of these children would not come close to achieving the recommended intake for fruits and vegetables (FV), which can be defined as one to two cups of fruits daily and one to three cups of vegetables daily. The reasons for such a statement are puzzling; the prices for FV have stayed relatively the same over time. In addition, the increase in frozen and canned FV are not only relatively inexpensive, but their packaging helps increase the lifespan of the product. Why then are children, especially in families from low socioeconomic settings, not meeting these daily requirements? After reading many articles, I have concluded that one of the main factors is finance. It can be costly, in terms of time as well as financially, to buy fresh products and take time out of the day to prepare a meal, especially when fast-food restaurants can provide a cheap and satisfying meal in a fraction of the time. Another factor influencing the lack of FV consumption in children is time; many parents have long work hours and perhaps do not have enough time in their day to prepare complex and nutritious meals. Lastly, another factor that must be considered is the possibility of living in a food desert: an area in which there is limited access to nutritious foods within half a mile walking distance. It is because of these reasons that I would like to discuss different ways to help children reach the recommended daily value for FV intake in more detail.