ArticleJournal of digital imaging2017
Assessing Inaccuracies in Automated Information Extraction of Breast Imaging Findings.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of natural language processing applied to radiology reports.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Pooled it
- Evaluation of a new method of calculating breast tumor volume based on automated breast ultrasound.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.