Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31066686›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2019

Natural Language Processing for the Identification of Silent Brain Infarcts From Neuroimaging Reports.

Sunyang Fu, Lester Y Leung, Yanshan Wang, Anne-Olivia Raulli, David F Kallmes, Kristin A Kinsman, Kristoff B Nelson, Michael S Clark, Patrick H Luetmer, Paul R Kingsbury and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sunyang FuDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1691-5179
Lester Y LeungDepartment of Neurology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5027-7740
Yanshan WangDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4433-7839
Anne-Olivia RaulliDepartment of Neurology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5273-0430
David F KallmesDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8495-0040
Kristin A KinsmanDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7704-4114
Kristoff B NelsonDepartment of Neurology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3506-9847
Michael S ClarkDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3287-8478
Patrick H LuetmerDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4660-7644
Paul R KingsburyDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1835-466X
David M KentInstitute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9205-5070
Hongfang LiuDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2570-3741
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · USMayo Clinic in Florida · USTufts Medical Center · US

Funding

Open Health Natural Language Processing CollaboratoryU01TR002062 · NCATS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI JIANG, XIAOQIAN, LIU, HONGFANG · 2017 to 2021
$7.6M
Enabling Comparative Effectiveness Research in Silent Brain Infarction Through Natural Language Processing and Big DataR01NS102233 · NINDS · TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER · PI DAVID M KENT · 2017 to 2026
$3.4M
Value of Personalized Risk InformationU01NS086294 · NINDS · TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER · PI KENT, DAVID M, NEUMANN, PETER · 2013 to 2017
$2.6M
NCATS NIH HHS U01 TR002062NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS102233NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS086294
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSilent brain infarction (SBI) is defined as the presence of 1 or more brain lesions, presumed to be because of vascular occlusion, found by neuroimaging (magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography) in patients without clinical manifestations of stroke. It is more common than stroke and can be detected in 20% of healthy elderly people. Early detection of SBI may mitigate the risk of stroke by offering preventative treatment plans. Natural language processing (NLP) techniques offer an opportunity to systematically identify SBI cases from electronic health records (EHRs) by extracting, normalizing, and classifying SBI-related incidental findings interpreted by radiologists from neuroimaging reports.

objectiveThis study aimed to develop NLP systems to determine individuals with incidentally discovered SBIs from neuroimaging reports at 2 sites: Mayo Clinic and Tufts Medical Center.

methodsBoth rule-based and machine learning approaches were adopted in developing the NLP system. The rule-based system was implemented using the open source NLP pipeline MedTagger, developed by Mayo Clinic. Features for rule-based systems, including significant words and patterns related to SBI, were generated using pointwise mutual information. The machine learning models adopted convolutional neural network (CNN), random forest, support vector machine, and logistic regression. The performance of the NLP algorithm was compared with a manually created gold standard. The gold standard dataset includes 1000 radiology reports randomly retrieved from the 2 study sites (Mayo and Tufts) corresponding to patients with no prior or current diagnosis of stroke or dementia. 400 out of the 1000 reports were randomly sampled and double read to determine interannotator agreements. The gold standard dataset was equally split to 3 subsets for training, developing, and testing.

resultsAmong the 400 reports selected to determine interannotator agreement, 5 reports were removed due to invalid scan types. The interannotator agreements across Mayo and Tufts neuroimaging reports were 0.87 and 0.91, respectively. The rule-based system yielded the best performance of predicting SBI with an accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.991, 0.925, 1.000, 1.000, and 0.990, respectively. The CNN achieved the best score on predicting white matter disease (WMD) with an accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 0.994, 0.994, 0.994, 0.994, and 0.994, respectively.

conclusionsWe adopted a standardized data abstraction and modeling process to developed NLP techniques (rule-based and machine learning) to detect incidental SBIs and WMDs from annotated neuroimaging reports. Validation statistics suggested a high feasibility of detecting SBIs and WMDs from EHRs using NLP.

Indexed as

electronic health recordsnatural language processingneuroimaging

Identifiers

PMID31066686
PMCPMC6524454
OpenAlexW2927599034

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.