Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26347806›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2015

KneeTex: an ontology-driven system for information extraction from MRI reports.

Irena Spasić, Bo Zhao, Christopher B Jones, Kate Button

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical semantics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Content and quality of physical activity ontologies: a systematic review.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Improving Automating Quality Control in Radiology: Leveraging Large Language Models to Extract Correlative Findings in Radiology and Operative Reports.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

4 authors.

Irena SpasićSchool of Computer Science & Informatics, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF24 3AA UK.
Bo ZhaoSchool of Computer Science & Informatics, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF24 3AA UK.
Christopher B JonesSchool of Computer Science & Informatics, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF24 3AA UK.
Kate ButtonSchool of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF14 4XN UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the realm of knee pathology, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has the advantage of visualising all structures within the knee joint, which makes it a valuable tool for increasing diagnostic accuracy and planning surgical treatments. Therefore, clinical narratives found in MRI reports convey valuable diagnostic information. A range of studies have proven the feasibility of natural language processing for information extraction from clinical narratives. However, no study focused specifically on MRI reports in relation to knee pathology, possibly due to the complexity of knee anatomy and a wide range of conditions that may be associated with different anatomical entities. In this paper we describe KneeTex, an information extraction system that operates in this domain.

methodsAs an ontology-driven information extraction system, KneeTex makes active use of an ontology to strongly guide and constrain text analysis. We used automatic term recognition to facilitate the development of a domain-specific ontology with sufficient detail and coverage for text mining applications. In combination with the ontology, high regularity of the sublanguage used in knee MRI reports allowed us to model its processing by a set of sophisticated lexico-semantic rules with minimal syntactic analysis. The main processing steps involve named entity recognition combined with coordination, enumeration, ambiguity and co-reference resolution, followed by text segmentation. Ontology-based semantic typing is then used to drive the template filling process.

resultsWe adopted an existing ontology, TRAK (Taxonomy for RehAbilitation of Knee conditions), for use within KneeTex. The original TRAK ontology expanded from 1,292 concepts, 1,720 synonyms and 518 relationship instances to 1,621 concepts, 2,550 synonyms and 560 relationship instances. This provided KneeTex with a very fine-grained lexico-semantic knowledge base, which is highly attuned to the given sublanguage. Information extraction results were evaluated on a test set of 100 MRI reports. A gold standard consisted of 1,259 filled template records with the following slots: finding, finding qualifier, negation, certainty, anatomy and anatomy qualifier. KneeTex extracted information with precision of 98.00 %, recall of 97.63 % and F-measure of 97.81 %, the values of which are in line with human-like performance.

conclusionsKneeTex is an open-source, stand-alone application for information extraction from narrative reports that describe an MRI scan of the knee. Given an MRI report as input, the system outputs the corresponding clinical findings in the form of JavaScript Object Notation objects. The extracted information is mapped onto TRAK, an ontology that formally models knowledge relevant for the rehabilitation of knee conditions. As a result, formally structured and coded information allows for complex searches to be conducted efficiently over the original MRI reports, thereby effectively supporting epidemiologic studies of knee conditions.

Identifiers

PMID26347806
PMCPMC4561435

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.