ArticleJournal of digital imaging2013
Cross-sectional relatedness between sentences in breast radiology reports: development of an SVM classifier and evaluation against annotations of five breast radiologists.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automatically pairing measured findings across narrative abdomen CT reports.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduce the notion of cross-sectional relatedness as an informational dependence relation between sentences in the conclusion section of a breast radiology report and sentences in the findings section of the same report. Assess inter-rater agreement of breast radiologists. Develop and evaluate a support vector machine (SVM) classifier for automatically detecting cross-sectional relatedness. A standard reference is manually created from 444 breast radiology reports by the first author. A subset of 37 reports is annotated by five breast radiologists. Inter-rater agreement is computed among their annotations and standard reference. Thirteen numerical features are developed to characterize pairs of sentences; the optimal feature set is sought through forward selection. Inter-rater agreement is F-measure 0.623. SVM classifier has F-measure of 0.699 in the 12-fold cross-validation protocol against standard reference. Report length does not correlate with the classifier's performance (correlation coefficient = -0.073). SVM classifier has average F-measure of 0.505 against annotations by breast radiologists. Mediocre inter-rater agreement is possibly caused by: (1) definition is insufficiently actionable, (2) fine-grained nature of cross-sectional relatedness on sentence level, instead of, for instance, on paragraph level, and (3) higher-than-average complexity of 37-report sample. SVM classifier performs better against standard reference than against breast radiologists's annotations. This is supportive of (3). SVM's performance on standard reference is satisfactory. Since optimal feature set is not breast specific, results may transfer to non-breast anatomies. Applications include a smart report viewing environment and data mining.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.