ArticleChinese medical journal2019
Automatic extraction of imaging observation and assessment categories from breast magnetic resonance imaging reports with natural language processing.
Article in Chinese medical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 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
- Theory of radiologist interaction with instant messaging decision support tools: A sequential-explanatory study.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- A scoping review of natural language processing of radiology reports in breast cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Using a classification model for determining the value of liver radiological reports of patients with colorectal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStructured reports are not widely used and thus most reports exist in the form of free text. The process of data extraction by experts is time-consuming and error-prone, whereas data extraction by natural language processing (NLP) is a potential solution that could improve diagnosis efficiency and accuracy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate an NLP program that determines American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) descriptors and final assessment categories from breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports.
methodsThis cross-sectional study involved 2330 breast MRI reports in the electronic medical record from 2009 to 2017. We used 1635 reports for the creation of a revised BI-RADS MRI lexicon and synonyms lists as well as the iterative development of an NLP system. The remaining 695 reports that were not used for developing the system were used as an independent test set for the final evaluation of the NLP system. The recall and precision of an NLP algorithm to detect the revised BI-RADS MRI descriptors and BI-RADS categories from the free-text reports were evaluated against a standard reference of manual human review.
resultsThere was a high level of agreement between two manual reviewers, with a κ value of 0.95. For all breast imaging reports, the NLP algorithm demonstrated a recall of 78.5% and a precision of 86.1% for correct identification of the revised BI-RADS MRI descriptors and the BI-RADS categories. NLP generated the total results in <1 s, whereas the manual reviewers averaged 3.38 and 3.23 min per report, respectively.
conclusionsThe NLP algorithm demonstrates high recall and precision for information extraction from free-text reports. This approach will help to narrow the gap between unstructured report text and structured data, which is needed in decision support and other applications.
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.