ArticleHealth and technology2017
Automatic classification of histopathological diagnoses for building a large scale tissue catalogue.
Article in Health and technology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this paper an automatic classification system for pathological findings is presented. The starting point in our undertaking was a pathologic tissue collection with about 1.4 million tissue samples described by free text records over 23 years. Exploring knowledge out of this "big data" pool is a challenging task, especially when dealing with unstructured data spanning over many years. The classification is based on an ontology-based term extraction and decision tree build with a manually curated classification system. The information extracting system is based on regular expressions and a text substitution system. We describe the generation of the decision trees by medical experts using a visual editor. Also the evaluation of the classification process with a reference data set is described. We achieved an F-Score of 89,7% for ICD-10 and an F-Score of 94,7% for ICD-O classification. For the information extraction of the tumor staging and receptors we achieved am F-Score ranging from 81,8 to 96,8%.
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.