Nonnegative Matrix Factorization (NMF) is one of the most popular feature learning technologies in the field of machine learning and pattern recognition. It has been widely used and studied in the multi-view clustering tasks because of its effectiveness. This study proposes a general semi-supervised multi-view nonnegative matrix factorization algorithm. This algorithm incorporates discriminative and geometric information on data to learn a better-fused representation, and adopts a feature normalizing strategy to align the different views. Two specific implementations of this algorithm are developed to validate the effectiveness of the proposed framework: Graph regularization based Discriminatively Constrained Multi-View Nonnegative Matrix Factorization (GDCMVNMF) and Extended Multi-View Constrained Nonnegative Matrix Factorization (ExMVCNMF). The intrinsic connection between these two specific implementations is discussed, and the optimization based on multiply update rules is presented. Experiments on six datasets show that the effectiveness of GDCMVNMF and ExMVCNMF outperforms several representative unsupervised and semi-supervised multi-view NMF approaches.
- Article type
- Year
- Co-author
The lack of labeled image data poses a serious challenge to the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical image diagnosis. Medical image notes contain valuable patient information that could be used to label images for machine learning tasks. However, most image note texts are unstructured with heterogeneity and short-paragraph characters, which fail traditional keyword-based techniques. We utilized a deep learning approach to recover missing labels for medical image notes automatically by using a combination of deep word embedding and deep neural network classifiers. Bidirectional encoder representations from transformers trained on medical image notes corpus (MinBERT) were proposed. We applied the proposed techniques to two typical classification tasks: Medical image type identification and clinical diagnosis identification. The two methods significantly outperformed baseline methods and presented high accuracies of 99.56