Clinically Grounded Label-Reduction Scheme

• Clinically grounded label-reduction schemes are frameworks that minimize expert labeling by propagating weak labels using domain knowledge and distance metrics.
• They employ memory-based clustering and strategic label allocation to construct effective weak labelers for extensive unlabeled medical datasets.
• Empirical evaluations in time-series and image tasks demonstrate notable accuracy and F1 improvements over traditional weak labeling methods.

A clinically grounded label-reduction scheme refers to algorithmic frameworks and methodologies designed to minimize the quantity of expert-provided labels required for effective machine learning in medical domains, while maintaining or improving downstream predictive performance and clinical fidelity. Such schemes leverage inherent data structure, domain knowledge, and expert guidance to construct more efficient labeling strategies—often automating the generation of weak labels for large unlabeled corpora, prioritizing label quality, and optimizing label allocation across clinically meaningful groupings, all within the constraints of limited annotation budgets.

1. Formal Problem Statement and Motivation

High-quality labeled data is critical for training deep neural networks in medicine, yet procuring expert annotations is costly and often infeasible at scale. Data programming addresses this by combining multiple weak labeling functions to generate probabilistic training labels. However, formulating such weak labeling functions is particularly challenging in complex modalities (e.g., images or time series), and hand-crafted rules may not scale or generalize. Clinically grounded label-reduction schemes formalize the objective: for an input space $\mathcal{X}$ and finite label set $\mathcal{Y} = \{1, \dots, C\}$, with an unlabeled pool $\mathcal{D}_u = \{x_1, \dots, x_{N_u}\}$, and a label budget $N_L$, the goal is to automatically generate $N_w$ weak labelers $\{\ell^{(1)}, \dots, \ell^{(N_w)}\}$ by querying an expert on a selected subset $S \subset \mathcal{D}_u$, $|S|=N_s\leq N_L$. These weak labelers are then aggregated, typically via data-programming models such as Snorkel, to induce high-coverage, probabilistically robust labels across $\mathcal{D}_u$ (Park et al., 10 Jul 2024). This approach is distinct from pure label audit/rejection strategies (e.g., SNCV (Hsu et al., 2020)) and from hierarchical reorganization (e.g., label grouping (Asadi et al., 5 Feb 2025)), though all serve the broader aim of maximizing clinical utility per annotation.

2. Algorithmic Methodology

Central to the clinically grounded label-reduction paradigm is the explicit use of distance metrics or domain-structured groupings for strategic label allocation. The core algorithm constructs each weak labeler as follows (Park et al., 10 Jul 2024):

1. For each seed $k=1,\dots,N_w$:
   • Select a set of "memories" $M^k = \{m_1, \dots, m_r\} \subset \mathcal{D}_u$ such that every $x \in \mathcal{D}_u$ lies within distance $t$ of at least one $m_q$, with $r \geq C$.
   • Partition $\mathcal{D}_u$ by nearest memory.
   • Acquire expert labels for $M^k$, then propagate to the partition.
   • Each $\ell^{(k)}$ thus assigns all items in the same neighborhood the label of its closest memory.
2. The covering and memory selection are achieved via a CLARANS-style clustering to minimize label redundancy and ensure every class label is represented ($N_w \leq \lfloor N_L / C \rfloor$).
3. Individual weak labelers are combined either by majority vote or by probabilistic models (e.g., Snorkel’s generative model), yielding final aggregate pseudo-labels.

This "distance-propagation" operationalization exploits the assumption of local label constancy in the feature or embedding space.

3. Domain-Specific Distance Functions and Embeddings

The effectiveness of memory-based label-reduction hinges on distance metric selection:

• For medical time series (e.g., SpO₂ alarms), Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) provides a domain-aligned dissimilarity measure.
• For medical images, embeddings are derived via models such as OpenAI’s CLIP; both Euclidean distance in feature space ($$d(x,x') = \|\phi_{\text{img}}(x) - \phi_{\text{img}}(x')\|_2$$) and KL divergence over class-probability vectors are utilized.

No significant preprocessing beyond basic normalization is required, streamlining integration into diverse high-dimensional biomedical tasks (Park et al., 10 Jul 2024).

4. Complexity, Theoretical Guarantees, and Limitations

The CLARANS-style search underpinning memory selection attains asymptotic efficiency ($O(Z_gZ_lN_ur)$) compared to naïve approaches, with $Z_g$ and $Z_l$ representing numbers of global/local search iterations. The required number of queries is governed by the constraint that to prevent class omission, each seed must cover all $C$ classes: $N_s = \sum_k r \geq N_w C$, and $N_w \leq \lfloor N_L / C \rfloor$. Provided the labeling function $C$ is locally constant within metric balls of radius $t$, the induced weak labels are theoretically correct for all points within those neighborhoods.

A plausible implication is that the method is less robust if "local constancy" is violated due to boundary effects or pathological data clusters—though empirical results show appropriate threshold selection ($t$) can keep $N_s \ll N_u$ and maintain high accuracy.

5. Empirical Evaluation in Medical Domains

Two primary case studies demonstrate the impact of the scheme (Park et al., 10 Jul 2024):

(a) Medical Time-Series Alarms

• Task: 3,265 SpO₂ alarm windows, binary classification (suppressible vs. non-suppressible).
• Distance: DTW.
• Results summarize increased accuracy/F1 over clinician-defined labeling functions (LFs) and Snorkel baselines:

Method	Accuracy	F1	Improvement (Acc/F1)
Clin LFs + Majority Vote	0.630	0.734	Baseline
Clin LFs + Snorkel	0.467	0.536	Baseline
Ours (N_L=54) + MV	0.807	0.872	+17% / +13%
Ours (N_L=54) + Snorkel	0.746	0.823	+28% / +28%

(b) Medical Image Body-Part Identification

• Task: 6,293 dermatology images, 10-way multiclass.
• Distances: CLIP-based Euclidean and KL divergence.
• Results show gains up to +15% accuracy and +19% F1 over automated heuristic (Snuba) baselines. For example, with N_L=54 and KL+majority vote: accuracy = 67.3% vs. CLIP's 55.2%, F1 = 67.2% vs. 52.7%.

These results collectively validate the approach: labeling a judiciously chosen $\ll 2\%$ of the data yields superior or non-inferior model performance relative to traditional weak labeling paradigms.

6. Comparative Approaches and Clinical Impact

Other clinically motivated label-reduction or reallocation frameworks include:

• Stratified Noisy Cross-Validation (SNCV): Assigns a per-example quality score (QS) via cross-validated agreement, then stratifies by label rarity. On glaucoma suspect risk, retraining solely on high-QS images (50% fewer labels) preserves AUC (e.g., 0.950 vs. 0.954, 70,000 example baseline) and reliably identifies low-quality annotations, confirmed in relabeling audits (Hsu et al., 2020). This approach targets label quality and redundancy, allowing label pruning with minimal performance degradation.
• Clinically-Inspired Hierarchical Label Grouping: Instead of reducing the number of examples labeled, condensation can involve grouping fine-grained entities into clinically meaningful superclasses. For example, CheXpert's 14 pathologies are organized into 6 high-level categories with a custom hierarchical loss, achieving mean AUROC up to 0.904; the parent-level grouping directly reduces the required output dimension in deployment (Asadi et al., 5 Feb 2025).

Both methods instantiate distinct label-reduction axes: SNCV limits unnecessary or unreliable label consumption; hierarchical grouping lowers annotation granularity where permissible, reducing downstream interpretive complexity.

7. Extensions, Generalization, and Limitations

Clinically grounded label-reduction schemes are most effective under the following conditions:

• Availability of suitable distance metrics/embeddings capturing task-relevant similarity.
• Underlying class-conditional label regularity in local neighborhoods.
• Annotation budgets that preclude universal labeling or preclude extensive relabeling/auditing.

Potential limitations include sensitivity to metric choice, reduced effectiveness in highly heterogeneous datasets, and susceptibility to boundary mislabeling. Generalization beyond binary or multiclass tasks to ordinal, multilabel, or regression targets requires adaptations—such as metric learning or hierarchical penalty-based modeling.

A plausible implication is that hybrid frameworks, combining SNCV-style quality assessment, memory-based propagation, and hierarchical grouping, may further optimize label utilization in complex clinical settings, though empirical validation remains necessary.

---

Key References:

• Automating Weak Label Generation for Data Programming with Clinicians in the Loop (Park et al., 10 Jul 2024)
• Improving Medical Annotation Quality to Decrease Labeling Burden Using Stratified Noisy Cross-Validation (Hsu et al., 2020)
• Clinically-Inspired Hierarchical Multi-Label Classification of Chest X-rays with a Penalty-Based Loss Function (Asadi et al., 5 Feb 2025)