Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25352567›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2015

Automatic abstraction of imaging observations with their characteristics from mammography reports.

Selen Bozkurt, Jafi A Lipson, Utku Senol, Daniel L Rubin

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A decision support system for mammography reports interpretation.Health information science and systems · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. A Scalable Machine Learning Approach for Inferring Probabilistic US-LI-RADS Categorization.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Selen BozkurtDepartment of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, Akdeniz University Faculty of Medicine, Antalya, Turkey.
Jafi A LipsonDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Utku SenolDepartment of Radiology, Akdeniz University Faculty of Medicine, Antalya, Turkey.
Daniel L RubinDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA Department of Medicine (Biomedical Informatics Research), Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Akdeniz University · TRStanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRadiology reports are usually narrative, unstructured text, a format which hinders the ability to input report contents into decision support systems. In addition, reports often describe multiple lesions, and it is challenging to automatically extract information on each lesion and its relationships to characteristics, anatomic locations, and other information that describes it. The goal of our work is to develop natural language processing (NLP) methods to recognize each lesion in free-text mammography reports and to extract its corresponding relationships, producing a complete information frame for each lesion. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe built an NLP information extraction pipeline in the General Architecture for Text Engineering (GATE) NLP toolkit. Sequential processing modules are executed, producing an output information frame required for a mammography decision support system. Each lesion described in the report is identified by linking it with its anatomic location in the breast. In order to evaluate our system, we selected 300 mammography reports from a hospital report database.

resultsThe gold standard contained 797 lesions, and our system detected 815 lesions (780 true positives, 35 false positives, and 17 false negatives). The precision of detecting all the imaging observations with their modifiers was 94.9, recall was 90.9, and the F measure was 92.8.

conclusionsOur NLP system extracts each imaging observation and its characteristics from mammography reports. Although our application focuses on the domain of mammography, we believe our approach can generalize to other domains and may narrow the gap between unstructured clinical report text and structured information extraction needed for data mining and decision support.

Indexed as

MammographyNatural Language ProcessingRadiology Information SystemsDecision Support Systems, ClinicalElectronic Data ProcessingFemaleHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalbreastBreast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS)imaging informaticsinformation extractionnatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID25352567
PMCPMC11888341
OpenAlexW2125476304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.