Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27844217›Full record

ArticleJournal of digital imaging2017

Assessing Inaccuracies in Automated Information Extraction of Breast Imaging Findings.

Ronilda Lacson, Martha E Goodrich, Kimberly Harris, Phyllis Brawarsky, Jennifer S Haas

Open access · bronzeAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact, top 82% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ronilda LacsonDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. rlacson@partners.org.
Martha E GoodrichDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, USA.
Kimberly HarrisDepartment of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Phyllis BrawarskyDepartment of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Jennifer S HaasHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USDartmouth College · US

Funding

Promoting personalized decisions for breast cancer screening for women AND theirU54CA163307 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI HAAS, JENNIFER S, ONEGA, TRACY · 2011 to 2017
$6.1M
NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163307
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We previously identified breast imaging findings from radiology reports using an expert-based information extraction algorithm as part of the National Cancer Institute's Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) initiative. We validate this algorithm and assess inaccuracies in a different institutional setting. Mammography, ultrasound (US), and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports of patients at an academic health system between 4/2013 and 6/2013 were included for analysis. Accuracy of automatically extracting imaging findings using an algorithm developed at a different institution compared to manual gold standard review is reported. Extraction errors are further categorized based on manual review. Precision and recall for extracting BI-RADS categories remain between 0.9 and 1.0, except for MRI (0.7). F measures for extracting other findings are 0.9 for non-mass enhancement (in MRI) and 0.8-0.9 for cysts (in MRI and US). Extracting breast imaging findings resulted in lowest accuracy for findings of calcification (range 0.4-0.6 in mammography) and asymmetric density (0.5-0.7 in mammography). Majority of errors for extracting imaging findings were due to qualifier-based errors, descriptors which indicate absence of findings, missed by automated extraction (e.g., "benign" calcifications). Our information extraction algorithm provides an effective approach to extracting some breast imaging findings for populating a breast screening registry. However, errors in information extraction when utilizing methods in new settings demonstrate that further work is necessary to extract information content from unstructured multi-institutional radiology reports.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBreastBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalMagnetic Resonance ImagingMammographyReference StandardsUltrasonography, MammaryBreast neoplasmInformation storage and retrievalMagnetic resonance imagingMammographyRadiology reportingUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID27844217
PMCPMC5359211
OpenAlexW2550694825

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.