Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31317003›Full record

ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2019

Detecting insertion, substitution, and deletion errors in radiology reports using neural sequence-to-sequence models.

John Zech, Jessica Forde, Joseph J Titano, Deepak Kaji, Anthony Costa, Eric Karl Oermann

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Using automated methods to detect safety problems with health information technology: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Article
  7. Using BERT Models to Label Radiology Reports.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

John ZechDepartment of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Jessica FordeProject Jupyter, 190 Doe Library, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Joseph J TitanoDepartment of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Deepak KajiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Anthony CostaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Eric Karl OermannDepartment of Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundErrors in grammar, spelling, and usage in radiology reports are common. To automatically detect inappropriate insertions, deletions, and substitutions of words in radiology reports, we proposed using a neural sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) model.

methodsHead CT and chest radiograph reports from Mount Sinai Hospital (MSH) (n=61,722 and 818,978, respectively), Mount Sinai Queens (MSQ) (n=30,145 and 194,309, respectively) and MIMIC-III (n=32,259 and 54,685) were converted into sentences. Insertions, substitutions, and deletions of words were randomly introduced. Seq2seq models were trained using corrupted sentences as input to predict original uncorrupted sentences. Three models were trained using head CTs from MSH, chest radiographs from MSH, and head CTs from all three collections. Model performance was assessed across different sites and modalities. A sample of original, uncorrupted sentences were manually reviewed for any error in syntax, usage, or spelling to estimate real-world proofreading performance of the algorithm.

resultsSeq2seq detected 90.3% and 88.2% of corrupted sentences with 97.7% and 98.8% specificity in same-site, same-modality test sets for head CTs and chest radiographs, respectively. Manual review of original, uncorrupted same-site same-modality head CT sentences demonstrated seq2seq positive predictive value (PPV) 0.393 (157/400; 95% CI, 0.346-0.441) and negative predictive value (NPV) 0.986 (789/800; 95% CI, 0.976-0.992) for detecting sentences containing real-world errors, with estimated sensitivity of 0.389 (95% CI, 0.267-0.542) and specificity 0.986 (95% CI, 0.985-0.987) over n=86,211 uncorrupted training examples.

conclusionsSeq2seq models can be highly effective at detecting erroneous insertions, deletions, and substitutions of words in radiology reports. To achieve high performance, these models require site- and modality-specific training examples. Incorporating additional targeted training data could further improve performance in detecting real-world errors in reports.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencemachine learningnatural language processingneural networks (computer)Radiology

Identifiers

PMID31317003
PMCPMC6603352
OpenAlexW2889947689

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.