Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23947340›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2013

Automated identification of pneumonia in chest radiograph reports in critically ill patients.

Vincent Liu, Mark P Clark, Mark Mendoza, Ramin Saket, Marla N Gardner, Benjamin J Turk, Gabriel J Escobar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Developing a web-based SKOS editor.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2016
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Vincent LiuDivision of Research and Systems Research Initiative, Kaiser Permanente, 2000 Broadway, Webster Annex, Oakland, CA 94612, USA. Vincent.X.Liu@kp.org
Mark P Clark
Mark Mendoza
Ramin Saket
Marla N Gardner
Benjamin J Turk
Gabriel J Escobar

Funding

Rapid Clinical Snapshots from the EMR among Pneumonia PatientsR01HS018480 · AHRQ · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI ESCOBAR, GABRIEL J. · 2009 to 2011
$1.5M
Patient safety and outcomes in sepsisF32HS019181 · AHRQ · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI LIU, VINCENT · 2010 to 2010
$60k
AHRQ HHS 1R01HS018480-01AHRQ HHS F32HS019181-01
6 · The paper itself

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

Critical IllnessElectronic Data ProcessingPatient Identification SystemsAgedAged, 80 and overAlgorithmsCaliforniaFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedNatural Language ProcessingPhysiciansPneumoniaProcess Assessment, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID23947340
PMCPMC3765332

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.