Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25863643›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2015

Prioritization of free-text clinical documents: a novel use of a bayesian classifier.

Mark Singh, Akansh Murthy, Shridhar Singh

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mark Singh *Carnegie Mellon University, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Braintree, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7156-7851
Akansh Murthy *Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0115-9174
Shridhar Singh *Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1354-4029

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe amount of incoming data into physicians' offices is increasing, thereby making it difficult to process information efficiently and accurately to maximize positive patient outcomes. Current manual processes of screening for individual terms within long free-text documents are tedious and error-prone. This paper explores the use of statistical methods and computer systems to assist clinical data management.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to verify and validate the use of a naive Bayesian classifier as a means of properly prioritizing important clinical data, specifically that of free-text radiology reports.

methodsThere were one hundred reports that were first used to train the algorithm based on physicians' categorization of clinical reports as high-priority or low-priority. Then, the algorithm was used to evaluate 354 reports. Additional beautification procedures such as section extraction, text preprocessing, and negation detection were performed.

resultsThe algorithm evaluated the 354 reports with discrimination between high-priority and low-priority reports, resulting in a bimodal probability distribution. In all scenarios tested, the false negative rates were below 1.1% and the recall rates ranged from 95.65% to 98.91%. In the case of 50% prior probability and 80% threshold probability, the accuracy of this Bayesian classifier was 93.50%, with a positive predictive value (precision) of 80.54%. It also showed a sensitivity (recall) of 98.91% and a F-measure of 88.78%.

conclusionsThe results showed that the algorithm could be trained to detect abnormal radiology results by accurately screening clinical reports. Such a technique can potentially be used to enable automatic flagging of critical results. In addition to accuracy, the algorithm was able to minimize false negatives, which is important for clinical applications. We conclude that a Bayesian statistical classifier, by flagging reports with abnormal findings, can assist a physician in reviewing radiology reports more efficiently. This higher level of prioritization allows physicians to address important radiologic findings in a timelier manner and may also aid in minimizing errors of omission.

Indexed as

Bayesian classifierclinical reportsnatural language processingprioritizationradiology

Identifiers

PMID25863643
PMCPMC4409648

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.