Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28808792›Full record

ArticleJournal of digital imaging2018

Using Natural Language Processing of Free-Text Radiology Reports to Identify Type 1 Modic Endplate Changes.

Hannu T Huhdanpaa, W Katherine Tan, Sean D Rundell, Pradeep Suri, Falgun H Chokshi, Bryan A Comstock, Patrick J Heagerty, Kathryn T James, Andrew L Avins, Srdjan S Nedeljkovic and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Closing the loop: automatically identifying abnormal imaging results in scanned documents.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. TheNPJ digital medicine · 2019
    Review
  17. 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

20 authors.

Hannu T HuhdanpaaRadia, Inc., Lynwood, WA, USA.
W Katherine TanDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Sean D RundellDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Pradeep SuriDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Falgun H ChokshiDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Bryan A ComstockDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Patrick J HeagertyDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Kathryn T JamesComparative Effectiveness, Cost and Outcomes Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Andrew L AvinsDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA, USA.
Srdjan S NedeljkovicDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Spine Unit, Boston, MA, USA.
David R NerenzHenry Ford Hospital, Neuroscience Institute, Detroit, MI, USA.
David F KallmesDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Patrick H LuetmerDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Karen J ShermanKaiser Permanente of Washington Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Nancy L OrganDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Brent GriffithDepartment of Radiology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA.
Curtis P LanglotzDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
David CarrellKaiser Permanente of Washington Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Saeed HassanpourDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA.
Jeffrey G JarvikComparative Effectiveness, Cost and Outcomes Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. jarvikj@uw.edu.

Funding

A Pragmatic Trial of Lumbar Image Reporting with Epidemiology (LIRE)UH3AR066795 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI JARVIK, JEFFREY G · 2014 to 2017
$6.0M
Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data- Extension of Research (BOLDER)R01HS022972 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI JARVIK, JEFFREY G · 2013 to 2013
$741k
AHRQ HHS R01 HS022972NIAMS NIH HHS UH3 AR066795NIH HHS 1UH2AT007766-01NIH HHS 4UH3AR066795-02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electronic medical record (EMR) systems provide easy access to radiology reports and offer great potential to support quality improvement efforts and clinical research. Harnessing the full potential of the EMR requires scalable approaches such as natural language processing (NLP) to convert text into variables used for evaluation or analysis. Our goal was to determine the feasibility of using NLP to identify patients with Type 1 Modic endplate changes using clinical reports of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging examinations of the spine. Identifying patients with Type 1 Modic change who may be eligible for clinical trials is important as these findings may be important targets for intervention. Four annotators identified all reports that contained Type 1 Modic change, using N = 458 randomly selected lumbar spine MR reports. We then implemented a rule-based NLP algorithm in Java using regular expressions. The prevalence of Type 1 Modic change in the annotated dataset was 10%. Results were recall (sensitivity) 35/50 = 0.70 (95% confidence interval (C.I.) 0.52-0.82), specificity 404/408 = 0.99 (0.97-1.0), precision (positive predictive value) 35/39 = 0.90 (0.75-0.97), negative predictive value 404/419 = 0.96 (0.94-0.98), and F1-score 0.79 (0.43-1.0). Our evaluation shows the efficacy of rule-based NLP approach for identifying patients with Type 1 Modic change if the emphasis is on identifying only relevant cases with low concern regarding false negatives. As expected, our results show that specificity is higher than recall. This is due to the inherent difficulty of eliciting all possible keywords given the enormous variability of lumbar spine reporting, which decreases recall, while availability of good negation algorithms improves specificity.

Indexed as

Natural Language ProcessingResearch ReportHumansLow Back PainLumbar VertebraeMagnetic Resonance ImagingProspective StudiesRadiologyReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityLumbar spine imagingModic classificationNatural language processingRadiology reporting

Identifiers

PMID28808792
PMCPMC5788819

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.