Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26801764›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2016

Semantic representation of reported measurements in radiology.

Heiner Oberkampf, Sonja Zillner, James A Overton, Bernhard Bauer, Alexander Cavallaro, Michael Uder, Matthias Hammon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Heiner OberkampfDepartment of Computer Science, Software Methodologies for Distributed Systems, University of Augsburg, Universitätsstraße 6a, 86159, Augsburg, Germany. heiner.oberkampf@gmail.com.
Sonja ZillnerCorporate Technology, Siemens AG, Otto-Hahn-Ring 6, 81739, Münech, Germany. sonja.zillner@siemens.com.
James A OvertonKnocean.com, Toronto, Canada. james@overton.ca.
Bernhard BauerDepartment of Computer Science, Software Methodologies for Distributed Systems, University of Augsburg, Universitätsstraße 6a, 86159, Augsburg, Germany. bernhard.bauer@informatik.uni-augsburg.de.
Alexander CavallaroDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Maximiliansplatz 1, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. alexander.cavallaro@uk-erlangen.de.
Michael UderDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Maximiliansplatz 1, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. michael.uder@uk-erlangen.de.
Matthias HammonDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Maximiliansplatz 1, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. matthias.hammon@uk-erlangen.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn radiology, a vast amount of diverse data is generated, and unstructured reporting is standard. Hence, much useful information is trapped in free-text form, and often lost in translation and transmission. One relevant source of free-text data consists of reports covering the assessment of changes in tumor burden, which are needed for the evaluation of cancer treatment success. Any change of lesion size is a critical factor in follow-up examinations. It is difficult to retrieve specific information from unstructured reports and to compare them over time. Therefore, a prototype was implemented that demonstrates the structured representation of findings, allowing selective review in consecutive examinations and thus more efficient comparison over time.

methodsWe developed a semantic Model for Clinical Information (MCI) based on existing ontologies from the Open Biological and Biomedical Ontologies (OBO) library. MCI is used for the integrated representation of measured image findings and medical knowledge about the normal size of anatomical entities. An integrated view of the radiology findings is realized by a prototype implementation of a ReportViewer. Further, RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors) guidelines are implemented by SPARQL queries on MCI. The evaluation is based on two data sets of German radiology reports: An oncologic data set consisting of 2584 reports on 377 lymphoma patients and a mixed data set consisting of 6007 reports on diverse medical and surgical patients. All measurement findings were automatically classified as abnormal/normal using formalized medical background knowledge, i.e., knowledge that has been encoded into an ontology. A radiologist evaluated 813 classifications as correct or incorrect. All unclassified findings were evaluated as incorrect.

resultsThe proposed approach allows the automatic classification of findings with an accuracy of 96.4 % for oncologic reports and 92.9 % for mixed reports. The ReportViewer permits efficient comparison of measured findings from consecutive examinations. The implementation of RECIST guidelines with SPARQL enhances the quality of the selection and comparison of target lesions as well as the corresponding treatment response evaluation.

conclusionsThe developed MCI enables an accurate integrated representation of reported measurements and medical knowledge. Thus, measurements can be automatically classified and integrated in different decision processes. The structured representation is suitable for improved integration of clinical findings during decision-making. The proposed ReportViewer provides a longitudinal overview of the measurements.

Indexed as

Biological OntologiesMedical Informatics ApplicationsModels, TheoreticalHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedRadiologySemantics

Identifiers

PMID26801764
PMCPMC4722630

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.