Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32365973›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2020

Integrated Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning Models for Standardizing Radiotherapy Structure Names.

Khajamoinuddin Syed, William Sleeman Iv, Kevin Ivey, Michael Hagan, Jatinder Palta, Rishabh Kapoor, Preetam Ghosh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Enhancing Healthcare Data Integration: A Machine Learning Approach to Harmonizing Laboratory Labels.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Incorporating Patient Similarity and Clinical Temporality in Disease Prognostic Modeling.IEEE transactions on computational biology and bioinformatics
    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

7 authors.

Khajamoinuddin SyedDepartment of Computer Science, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284, USA.
William Sleeman IvDepartment of Computer Science, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284, USA.
Kevin IveyDepartment of Computer Science, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.
Michael HaganDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23298, USA.
Jatinder PaltaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23298, USA.
Rishabh KapoorDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23298, USA.
Preetam GhoshDepartment of Computer Science, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The lack of standardized structure names in radiotherapy (RT) data limits interoperability, data sharing, and the ability to perform big data analysis. To standardize radiotherapy structure names, we developed an integrated natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) based system that can map the physician-given structure names to American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 263 (TG-263) standard names. The dataset consist of 794 prostate and 754 lung cancer patients across the 40 different radiation therapy centers managed by the Veterans Health Administration (VA). Additionally, data from the Radiation Oncology department at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) was collected to serve as a test set. Domain experts identified as anatomically significant nine prostate and ten lung organs-at-risk (OAR) structures and manually labeled them according to the TG-263 standards, and remaining structures were labeled as Non_OAR. We experimented with six different classification algorithms and three feature vector methods, and the final model was built with fastText algorithm. Multiple validation techniques are used to assess the robustness of the proposed methodology. The macro-averaged F 1 score was used as the main evaluation metric. The model achieved an F 1 score of 0.97 on prostate structures and 0.99 for lung structures from the VA dataset. The model also performed well on the test (VCU) dataset, achieving an F 1 score of 0.93 for prostate structures and 0.95 on lung structures. In this work, we demonstrate that NLP and ML based approaches can used to standardize the physician-given RT structure names with high fidelity. This standardization can help with big data analytics in the radiation therapy domain using population-derived datasets, including standardization of the treatment planning process, clinical decision support systems, treatment quality improvement programs, and hypothesis-driven clinical research.

Indexed as

machine learningnatural language processingnomenclature standardizationquality assuranceradiotherapy structure namestext categorizationTG-263

Identifiers

PMID32365973
PMCPMC7348919

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.