Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30338478›Full record

ArticleJournal of digital imaging2019

Comprehensive Word-Level Classification of Screening Mammography Reports Using a Neural Network Sequence Labeling Approach.

Ryan G Short, John Bralich, Dave Bogaty, Nicholas T Befera

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

4 authors.

Ryan G ShortDepartment of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, 2301 Erwin Road, Box 3808, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. Ryan.Short@duke.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-3483-2895
John BralichScanslated, Inc., Durham, NC, USA.
Dave BogatyScanslated, Inc., Durham, NC, USA.
Nicholas T BeferaDepartment of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, 2301 Erwin Road, Box 3808, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiology reports contain a large amount of potentially valuable unstructured data. Recently, neural networks have been employed to perform classification of radiology reports over a few classes at the document level. The success of neural networks in sequence-labeling problems such as named entity recognition and part of speech tagging suggests that they could be used to classify radiology report text with greater granularity. We employed a neural network architecture to comprehensively classify mammography report text at the word level using a sequence labeling approach. Two radiologists devised a comprehensive classification system for screening mammography reports. Each word in each report was manually categorized by a radiologist into one of 33 categories according to the classification system. Tagged words referencing the same finding were grouped into unique sets. We pre-labeled reports with a rule-based algorithm and then manually edited these annotations for 6705 screening mammography reports (25.1%, 66.8%, and 8.1% BI-RADS 0, 1, and 2, respectively). A combined convolutional and recurrent neural network model was used to label words in each sentence of the individual reports. A siamese recurrent neural network was then used to group findings into sets. Performance of the neural network-based method was compared to a rule-based algorithm and a conditional random field (CRF) model. Global accuracy (percentage of documents where all word tags were predicted correctly) and keyword accuracy (percentage of all words that were labeled correctly, excluding words tagged as unimportant) were calculated on an unseen 519 report test set. Two-tailed t tests were used to assess differences between algorithm performance, and p < 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance. The neural network-based approach showed significantly higher global accuracy compared to both the rule-based algorithm (88.3 vs 57.0%, p < 0.001) and the CRF model (88.3% vs. 75.8%, p < 0.001). The neural network also showed significantly higher keyword level accuracy compared to the rule-based algorithm (95.5% vs. 80.9% p < 0.001) and CRF model (95.5% vs. 76.9%, p < 0.001). We demonstrate the potential of neural networks to accurately perform word-level multilabel classification of free text radiology reports across 33 classes, thus showing the utility of a sequence labeling approach to NLP of radiology reports. We found that a neural network classifier outperforms a rule-based algorithm and a CRF classifier for comprehensive multilabel classification of free text screening mammography reports at the word level. By approaching radiology report classification as a sequence-labeling problem, we demonstrate the ability of neural networks to extract data from free text radiology reports at a level of granularity not previously reported.

Indexed as

Neural Networks, ComputerBreast NeoplasmsDatabases, FactualElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMammographyReproducibility of ResultsResearch ReportDeep learningNatural language processingNLPRadiology reporting

Identifiers

PMID30338478
PMCPMC6737114

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.