ArticleJournal of digital imaging2019
Comprehensive Word-Level Classification of Screening Mammography Reports Using a Neural Network Sequence Labeling Approach.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of natural language processing applied to radiology reports.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Pooled it
- Natural Language Processing for Breast Imaging: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Natural Language Processing and Graph Theory: Making Sense of Imaging Records in a Novel Representation Frame.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Multi-label annotation of text reports from computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis using deep learning.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- The overview of the deep learning integrated into the medical imaging of liver: a review.Hepatology international · 2021Review
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
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
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.