Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34480231›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical systems2021

Deep Learning-Based Natural Language Processing in Radiology: The Impact of Report Complexity, Disease Prevalence, Dataset Size, and Algorithm Type on Model Performance.

A W Olthof, P M A van Ooijen, L J Cornelissen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical systems, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Generating colloquial radiology reports with large language models.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

3 authors.

A W OlthofDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Groningen, The Netherlands. a.olthof@treant.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0809-9722
P M A van OoijenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Groningen, The Netherlands.
L J CornelissenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In radiology, natural language processing (NLP) allows the extraction of valuable information from radiology reports. It can be used for various downstream tasks such as quality improvement, epidemiological research, and monitoring guideline adherence. Class imbalance, variation in dataset size, variation in report complexity, and algorithm type all influence NLP performance but have not yet been systematically and interrelatedly evaluated. In this study, we investigate these factors on the performance of four types [a fully connected neural network (Dense), a long short-term memory recurrent neural network (LSTM), a convolutional neural network (CNN), and a Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT)] of deep learning-based NLP. Two datasets consisting of radiologist-annotated reports of both trauma radiographs (n = 2469) and chest radiographs and computer tomography (CT) studies (n = 2255) were split into training sets (80%) and testing sets (20%). The training data was used as a source to train all four model types in 84 experiments (Fracture-data) and 45 experiments (Chest-data) with variation in size and prevalence. The performance was evaluated on sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, area under the curve, and F score. After the NLP of radiology reports, all four model-architectures demonstrated high performance with metrics up to > 0.90. CNN, LSTM, and Dense were outperformed by the BERT algorithm because of its stable results despite variation in training size and prevalence. Awareness of variation in prevalence is warranted because it impacts sensitivity and specificity in opposite directions.

Indexed as

Deep LearningRadiologyAlgorithmsHumansNatural Language ProcessingPrevalenceInformaticsMachine learningNatural language processingRadiology

Identifiers

PMID34480231
PMCPMC8416876

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.