Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34253196›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2021

Development and web deployment of an automated neuroradiology MRI protocoling tool with natural language processing.

Yeshwant Reddy Chillakuru, Shourya Munjal, Benjamin Laguna, Timothy L Chen, Gunvant R Chaudhari, Thienkhai Vu, Youngho Seo, Jared Narvid, Jae Ho Sohn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

9 authors.

Yeshwant Reddy ChillakuruRadiology & Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), 505 Parnassus Ave, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Shourya MunjalRadiology & Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), 505 Parnassus Ave, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Benjamin LagunaRadiology & Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), 505 Parnassus Ave, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Timothy L ChenRadiology & Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), 505 Parnassus Ave, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Gunvant R ChaudhariRadiology & Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), 505 Parnassus Ave, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Thienkhai VuRadiology & Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), 505 Parnassus Ave, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Youngho SeoRadiology & Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), 505 Parnassus Ave, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Jared NarvidRadiology & Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), 505 Parnassus Ave, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Jae Ho SohnRadiology & Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), 505 Parnassus Ave, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA. sohn87@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA systematic approach to MRI protocol assignment is essential for the efficient delivery of safe patient care. Advances in natural language processing (NLP) allow for the development of accurate automated protocol assignment. We aim to develop, evaluate, and deploy an NLP model that automates protocol assignment, given the clinician indication text.

methodsWe collected 7139 spine MRI protocols (routine or contrast) and 990 head MRI protocols (routine brain, contrast brain, or other) from a single institution. Protocols were split into training (n = 4997 for spine MRI; n = 839 for head MRI), validation (n = 1071 for spine MRI, fivefold cross-validation used for head MRI), and test (n = 1071 for spine MRI; n = 151 for head MRI) sets. fastText and XGBoost were used to develop 2 NLP models to classify spine and head MRI protocols, respectively. A Flask-based web app was developed to be deployed via Heroku.

resultsThe spine MRI model had an accuracy of 83.38% and a receiver operator characteristic area under the curve (ROC-AUC) of 0.8873. The head MRI model had an accuracy of 85.43% with a routine brain protocol ROC-AUC of 0.9463 and contrast brain protocol ROC-AUC of 0.9284. Cancer, infectious, and inflammatory related keywords were associated with contrast administration. Structural anatomic abnormalities and stroke/altered mental status were indicative of routine spine and brain MRI, respectively. Error analysis revealed increasing the sample size may improve performance for head MRI protocols. A web version of the model is provided for demonstration and deployment.

conclusionWe developed and web-deployed two NLP models that accurately predict spine and head MRI protocol assignment, which could improve radiology workflow efficiency.

Indexed as

Natural Language ProcessingRadiologyHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingRadiographyWorkflowAutomationNatural language processingNeuroimagingProtocol

Identifiers

PMID34253196
PMCPMC8276477

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.