Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32891620›Full record

ArticleGastrointestinal endoscopy2021

Application of optical character recognition with natural language processing for large-scale quality metric data extraction in colonoscopy reports.

Sobia Nasir Laique, Umar Hayat, Shashank Sarvepalli, Byron Vaughn, Mounir Ibrahim, John McMichael, Kanza Noor Qaiser, Carol Burke, Amit Bhatt, Colin Rhodes and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Extracting laboratory test information from paper-based reports.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sobia Nasir LaiqueDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Umar HayatDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Shashank SarvepalliDepartment of Hospital Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA; Department of Bioinformatics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Byron VaughnDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Mounir IbrahimDigestive Disease Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
John McMichaelDigestive Disease Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Kanza Noor QaiserDepartment of Hospital Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Carol BurkeDigestive Disease Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Amit BhattDigestive Disease Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Colin RhodeseHealth Technology, West Henrietta, New York, New York, USA.
Maged K RizkDigestive Disease Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Cleveland Clinic · USUniversity of Minnesota · USWinnMed · US

Funding

Research Training in GastroenterologyT32DK083266 · NIDDK · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI Hashem B El-Serag, FASIHA KANWAL · 2010 to 2026
$2.3M
NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK083266
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsColonoscopy is commonly performed for colorectal cancer screening in the United States. Reports are often generated in a non-standardized format and are not always integrated into electronic health records. Thus, this information is not readily available for streamlining quality management, participating in endoscopy registries, or reporting of patient- and center-specific risk factors predictive of outcomes. We aim to demonstrate the use of a new hybrid approach using natural language processing of charts that have been elucidated with optical character recognition processing (OCR/NLP hybrid) to obtain relevant clinical information from scanned colonoscopy and pathology reports, a technology co-developed by Cleveland Clinic and eHealth Technologies (West Henrietta, NY, USA).

methodsThis was a retrospective study conducted at Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, and the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. A randomly sampled list of outpatient screening colonoscopy procedures and pathology reports was selected. Desired variables were then collected. Two researchers first manually reviewed the reports for the desired variables. Then, the OCR/NLP algorithm was used to obtain the same variables from 3 electronic health records in use at our institution: Epic (Verona, Wisc, USA), ProVation (Minneapolis, Minn, USA) used for endoscopy reporting, and Sunquest PowerPath (Tucson, Ariz, USA) used for pathology reporting.

resultsCompared with manual data extraction, the accuracy of the hybrid OCR/NLP approach to detect polyps was 95.8%, adenomas 98.5%, sessile serrated polyps 99.3%, advanced adenomas 98%, inadequate bowel preparation 98.4%, and failed cecal intubation 99%. Comparison of the dataset collected via NLP alone with that collected using the hybrid OCR/NLP approach showed that the accuracy for almost all variables was >99%.

conclusionsOur study is the first to validate the use of a unique hybrid OCR/NLP technology to extract desired variables from scanned procedure and pathology reports contained in image format with an accuracy >95%.

Indexed as

CecumNatural Language ProcessingColonoscopyHumansMinnesotaRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID32891620
PMCPMC8794764
OpenAlexW3081518866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.