Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32559211›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Machine learning and natural language processing methods to identify ischemic stroke, acuity and location from radiology reports.

Charlene Jennifer Ong, Agni Orfanoudaki, Rebecca Zhang, Francois Pierre M Caprasse, Meghan Hutch, Liang Ma, Darian Fard, Oluwafemi Balogun, Matthew I Miller, Margaret Minnig and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Machine Learning in Clinical Trials: A Primer with Applications to Neurology.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2023
    Review
  20. 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

15 authors.

Charlene Jennifer OngBoston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Agni OrfanoudakiOperations Research Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Rebecca ZhangOperations Research Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Francois Pierre M CaprasseOperations Research Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Meghan HutchBoston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Liang MaBoston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Darian FardBoston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4413-1833
Oluwafemi BalogunBoston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6578-1851
Matthew I MillerBoston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Margaret MinnigBoston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Hanife SaglamHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Brenton PrescottBoston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
David M GreerBoston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Stelios SmirnakisHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Dimitris BertsimasOperations Research Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate, automated extraction of clinical stroke information from unstructured text has several important applications. ICD-9/10 codes can misclassify ischemic stroke events and do not distinguish acuity or location. Expeditious, accurate data extraction could provide considerable improvement in identifying stroke in large datasets, triaging critical clinical reports, and quality improvement efforts. In this study, we developed and report a comprehensive framework studying the performance of simple and complex stroke-specific Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML) methods to determine presence, location, and acuity of ischemic stroke from radiographic text. We collected 60,564 Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Radiology reports from 17,864 patients from two large academic medical centers. We used standard techniques to featurize unstructured text and developed neurovascular specific word GloVe embeddings. We trained various binary classification algorithms to identify stroke presence, location, and acuity using 75% of 1,359 expert-labeled reports. We validated our methods internally on the remaining 25% of reports and externally on 500 radiology reports from an entirely separate academic institution. In our internal population, GloVe word embeddings paired with deep learning (Recurrent Neural Networks) had the best discrimination of all methods for our three tasks (AUCs of 0.96, 0.98, 0.93 respectively). Simpler NLP approaches (Bag of Words) performed best with interpretable algorithms (Logistic Regression) for identifying ischemic stroke (AUC of 0.95), MCA location (AUC 0.96), and acuity (AUC of 0.90). Similarly, GloVe and Recurrent Neural Networks (AUC 0.92, 0.89, 0.93) generalized better in our external test set than BOW and Logistic Regression for stroke presence, location and acuity, respectively (AUC 0.89, 0.86, 0.80). Our study demonstrates a comprehensive assessment of NLP techniques for unstructured radiographic text. Our findings are suggestive that NLP/ML methods can be used to discriminate stroke features from large data cohorts for both clinical and research-related investigations.

Indexed as

Machine LearningSpeech Recognition SoftwareBrain IschemiaHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedPatient AcuityStroke

Identifiers

PMID32559211
PMCPMC7304623

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.