ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2019
Finding relevant free-text radiology reports at scale with IBM Watson Content Analytics: a feasibility study in the UK NHS.
Article in Journal of biomedical semantics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Industrial applications of large language models.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A Preliminary Study to Use SUVmax of FDG PET-CT as an Identifier of Lesion for Artificial Intelligence.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSignificant amounts of health data are stored as free-text within clinical reports, letters, discharge summaries and notes. Busy clinicians have limited time to read such large amounts of free-text and are at risk of information overload and consequently missing information vital to patient care. Automatically identifying relevant information at the point of care has the potential to reduce these risks but represents a considerable research challenge. One software solution that has been proposed in industry is the IBM Watson analytics suite which includes rule-based analytics capable of processing large document collections at scale.
resultsIn this paper we present an overview of IBM Watson Content Analytics and a feasibility study using Content Analytics with a large-scale corpus of clinical free-text reports within a UK National Health Service (NHS) context. We created dictionaries and rules for identifying positive incidence of hydronephrosis and brain metastasis from 5.6 m radiology reports and were able to achieve 94% precision, 95% recall and 89% precision, 94% recall respectively on a sample of manually annotated reports. With minor changes for US English we applied the same rule set to an open access corpus of 0.5 m radiology reports from a US hospital and achieved 93% precision, 94% recall and 84% precision, 88% recall respectively.
conclusionsWe were able to implement IBM Watson within a UK NHS context and demonstrate effective results that could provide clinicians with an automatic safety net which highlights clinically important information within free-text documents. Our results suggest that currently available technologies such as IBM Watson Content Analytics already have the potential to address information overload and improve clinical safety and that solutions developed in one hospital and country may be transportable to different hospitals and countries. Our study was limited to exploring technical aspects of the feasibility of one industry solution and we recognise that healthcare text analytics research is a fast-moving field. That said, we believe our study suggests that text analytics is sufficiently advanced to be implemented within industry solutions that can improve clinical safety.
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.