Data-driven hypothesis generation among inexperienced clinical researchers: A comparison of secondary data analyses with visualization (VIADS) and other tools.

Objectives: To compare how clinical researchers generate data-driven hypotheses with a visual interactive analytic tool (VIADS, a visual interactive analysis tool for filtering and summarizing large datasets coded with hierarchical terminologies) or other tools. Methods: We recruited clinical researchers and separated them into "experienced" and "inexperienced" groups. Participants were randomly assigned to a VIADS or control group within the groups. Each participant conducted a remote 2-hour study session for hypothesis generation with the same study facilitator on the same datasets by following a think-aloud protocol. Screen activities and audio were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed. Hypotheses were evaluated by seven experts on their validity, significance, and feasibility. We conducted multilevel random effect modeling for statistical tests. Results: Eighteen participants generated 227 hypotheses, of which 147 (65%) were valid. The VIADS and control groups generated a similar number of hypotheses. The VIADS group took a significantly shorter time to generate one hypothesis (e.g., among inexperienced clinical researchers, 258 s versus 379 s, p = 0.046, power = 0.437, ICC = 0.15). The VIADS group received significantly lower ratings than the control group on feasibility and the combination rating of validity, significance, and feasibility. Conclusion: The role of VIADS in hypothesis generation seems inconclusive. The VIADS group took a significantly shorter time to generate each hypothesis. However, the combined validity, significance, and feasibility ratings of their hypotheses were significantly lower. Further characterization of hypotheses, including specifics on how they might be improved, could guide future tool development.

Data-driven hypothesis generation among inexperienced clinical researchers: A comparison of secondary data analyses with visualization (VIADS) and other tools.

Objectives: To compare how clinical researchers generate data-driven hypotheses with a visual interactive analytic tool (VIADS, a visual interactive analysis tool for filtering and summarizing large data sets coded with hierarchical terminologies) or other tools. Methods: We recruited clinical researchers and separated them into "experienced" and "inexperienced" groups. Participants were randomly assigned to a VIADS or control group within the groups. Each participant conducted a remote 2-hour study session for hypothesis generation with the same study facilitator on the same datasets by following a think-aloud protocol. Screen activities and audio were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed. Hypotheses were evaluated by seven experts on their validity, significance, and feasibility. We conducted multilevel random effect modeling for statistical tests. Results: Eighteen participants generated 227 hypotheses, of which 147 (65%) were valid. The VIADS and control groups generated a similar number of hypotheses. The VIADS group took a significantly shorter time to generate one hypothesis (e.g., among inexperienced clinical researchers, 258 seconds versus 379 seconds, p = 0.046, power = 0.437, ICC = 0.15). The VIADS group received significantly lower ratings than the control group on feasibility and the combination rating of validity, significance, and feasibility. Conclusion: The role of VIADS in hypothesis generation seems inconclusive. The VIADS group took a significantly shorter time to generate each hypothesis. However, the combined validity, significance, and feasibility ratings of their hypotheses were significantly lower. Further characterization of hypotheses, including specifics on how they might be improved, could guide future tool development.

Keyphrase Identification Using Minimal Labeled Data with Hierarchical Context and Transfer Learning.

Interoperable clinical decision support system (CDSS) rules provide a pathway to interoperability, a well-recognized challenge in health information technology. Building an ontology facilitates creating interoperable CDSS rules, which can be achieved by identifying the keyphrases (KP) from the existing literature. However, KP identification for data labeling requires human expertise, consensus, and contextual understanding. This paper aims to present a semi-supervised KP identification framework using minimal labeled data based on hierarchical attention over the documents and domain adaptation. Our method outperforms the prior neural architectures by learning through synthetic labels for initial training, document-level contextual learning, language modeling, and fine-tuning with limited gold standard label data. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first functional framework for the CDSS sub-domain to identify KPs, which is trained on limited labeled data. It contributes to the general natural language processing (NLP) architectures in areas such as clinical NLP, where manual data labeling is challenging, and light-weighted deep learning models play a role in real-time KP identification as a complementary approach to human experts' effort.

Development, validation, and usage of metrics to evaluate the quality of clinical research hypotheses.

Objectives: Metrics and instruments can provide guidance for clinical researchers to assess their potential research projects at an early stage before significant investment. Furthermore, metrics can also provide structured criteria for peer reviewers to assess others' clinical research manuscripts or grant proposals. This study aimed to develop, test, validate, and use evaluation metrics and instruments to accurately, consistently, and conveniently assess the quality of scientific hypotheses for clinical research projects. Materials and Methods: Metrics development went through iterative stages, including literature review, metrics and instrument development, internal and external testing and validation, and continuous revisions in each stage based on feedback. Furthermore, two experiments were conducted to determine brief and comprehensive versions of the instrument. Results: The brief version of the instrument contained three dimensions: validity, significance, and feasibility. The comprehensive version of metrics included novelty, clinical relevance, potential benefits and risks, ethicality, testability, clarity, interestingness, and the three dimensions of the brief version. Each evaluation dimension included 2 to 5 subitems to evaluate the specific aspects of each dimension. For example, validity included clinical validity and scientific validity. The brief and comprehensive versions of the instruments included 12 and 39 subitems, respectively. Each subitem used a 5-point Likert scale. Conclusion: The validated brief and comprehensive versions of metrics can provide standardized, consistent, and generic measurements for clinical research hypotheses, allow clinical researchers to prioritize their research ideas systematically, objectively, and consistently, and can be used as a tool for quality assessment during the peer review process.