Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34082729›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical informatics and decision making2021

A systematic review of natural language processing applied to radiology reports.

Arlene Casey, Emma Davidson, Michael Poon, Hang Dong, Daniel Duma, Andreas Grivas, Claire Grover, Víctor Suárez-Paniagua, Richard Tobin, William Whiteley and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 101 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
101citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

101 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

41 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

12 authors.

Arlene CaseySchool of Literatures, Languages and Cultures (LLC), University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland. Arlene.Casey@ed.ac.uk.
Emma DavidsonCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Michael PoonCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Hang DongCentre for Medical Informatics, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Daniel DumaSchool of Literatures, Languages and Cultures (LLC), University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Andreas GrivasInstitute for Language, Cognition and Computation, School of informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Claire GroverInstitute for Language, Cognition and Computation, School of informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Víctor Suárez-PaniaguaCentre for Medical Informatics, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Richard TobinInstitute for Language, Cognition and Computation, School of informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
William WhiteleyCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Honghan WuHealth Data Research UK, London, UK.
Beatrice AlexSchool of Literatures, Languages and Cultures (LLC), University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 27589Chief Scientist Office SCAF/17/01Medical Research Council MCPC17209Medical Research Council MC_PC_18029Medical Research Council MR/S004149/1Medical Research Council MR/S004149/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNatural language processing (NLP) has a significant role in advancing healthcare and has been found to be key in extracting structured information from radiology reports. Understanding recent developments in NLP application to radiology is of significance but recent reviews on this are limited. This study systematically assesses and quantifies recent literature in NLP applied to radiology reports.

methodsWe conduct an automated literature search yielding 4836 results using automated filtering, metadata enriching steps and citation search combined with manual review. Our analysis is based on 21 variables including radiology characteristics, NLP methodology, performance, study, and clinical application characteristics.

resultsWe present a comprehensive analysis of the 164 publications retrieved with publications in 2019 almost triple those in 2015. Each publication is categorised into one of 6 clinical application categories. Deep learning use increases in the period but conventional machine learning approaches are still prevalent. Deep learning remains challenged when data is scarce and there is little evidence of adoption into clinical practice. Despite 17% of studies reporting greater than 0.85 F1 scores, it is hard to comparatively evaluate these approaches given that most of them use different datasets. Only 14 studies made their data and 15 their code available with 10 externally validating results.

conclusionsAutomated understanding of clinical narratives of the radiology reports has the potential to enhance the healthcare process and we show that research in this field continues to grow. Reproducibility and explainability of models are important if the domain is to move applications into clinical use. More could be done to share code enabling validation of methods on different institutional data and to reduce heterogeneity in reporting of study properties allowing inter-study comparisons. Our results have significance for researchers in the field providing a systematic synthesis of existing work to build on, identify gaps, opportunities for collaboration and avoid duplication.

Indexed as

RadiologyRadiology Information SystemsHumansMachine LearningNatural Language ProcessingReproducibility of ResultsNatural language processingRadiologySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34082729
PMCPMC8176715

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.