ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2013
Automated identification of pneumonia in chest radiograph reports in critically ill patients.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evidence-based Clinical Decision Support Systems for the prediction and detection of three disease states in critical care: A systematic literature review.F1000Research · 2019Pooled it
- Community-acquired pneumonia identification from electronic health records in the absence of a gold standard: A Bayesian latent class analysis.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Article
- Evaluating the Performance and Bias of Natural Language Processing Tools in Labeling Chest Radiograph Reports.Radiology · 2024Article
- Better performance of deep learning pulmonary nodule detection using chest radiography with pixel level labels in reference to computed tomography: data quality matters.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A Methodological Approach to Validate Pneumonia Encounters from Radiology Reports Using Natural Language Processing.Methods of information in medicine · 2022Article
- Improving reference standards for validation of AI-based radiography.The British journal of radiology · 2021Article
- The Presentation, Pace, and Profile of Infection and Sepsis Patients Hospitalized Through the Emergency Department: An Exploratory Analysis.Critical care explorations · 2021Article
- Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning to Enable Clinical Decision Support for Treatment of Pediatric Pneumonia.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2020Article
- Deep Vision: Learning to Identify Renal Disease With Neural Networks.Kidney international reports · 2019Article
- Accurate Identification of Colonoscopy Quality and Polyp Findings Using Natural Language Processing.Journal of clinical gastroenterology · 2019Article
- Development and Validation of a Natural Language Processing Tool to Identify Patients Treated for Pneumonia across VA Emergency Departments.Applied clinical informatics · 2018Article
- Using multiclass classification to automate the identification of patient safety incident reports by type and severity.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2017Article
- Enhancing Comparative Effectiveness Research With Automated Pediatric Pneumonia Detection in a Multi-Institutional Clinical Repository: A PHIS+ Pilot Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Article
- Can You Read Me Now? Unlocking Narrative Data with Natural Language Processing.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2016Article
- Developing a web-based SKOS editor.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2016Article
- Agile text mining for the 2014 i2b2/UTHealth Cardiac risk factors challenge.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2015Article
- Risk prediction for chronic kidney disease progression using heterogeneous electronic health record data and time series analysis.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrior studies demonstrate the suitability of natural language processing (NLP) for identifying pneumonia in chest radiograph (CXR) reports, however, few evaluate this approach in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.
methodsFrom a total of 194,615 ICU reports, we empirically developed a lexicon to categorize pneumonia-relevant terms and uncertainty profiles. We encoded lexicon items into unique queries within an NLP software application and designed an algorithm to assign automated interpretations ('positive', 'possible', or 'negative') based on each report's query profile. We evaluated algorithm performance in a sample of 2,466 CXR reports interpreted by physician consensus and in two ICU patient subgroups including those admitted for pneumonia and for rheumatologic/endocrine diagnoses.
resultsMost reports were deemed 'negative' (51.8%) by physician consensus. Many were 'possible' (41.7%); only 6.5% were 'positive' for pneumonia. The lexicon included 105 terms and uncertainty profiles that were encoded into 31 NLP queries. Queries identified 534,322 'hits' in the full sample, with 2.7 ± 2.6 'hits' per report. An algorithm, comprised of twenty rules and probability steps, assigned interpretations to reports based on query profiles. In the validation set, the algorithm had 92.7% sensitivity, 91.1% specificity, 93.3% positive predictive value, and 90.3% negative predictive value for differentiating 'negative' from 'positive'/'possible' reports. In the ICU subgroups, the algorithm also demonstrated good performance, misclassifying few reports (5.8%).
conclusionsMany CXR reports in ICU patients demonstrate frank uncertainty regarding a pneumonia diagnosis. This electronic tool demonstrates promise for assigning automated interpretations to CXR reports by leveraging both terms and uncertainty profiles.
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.