Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35549854›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022

Automated medical chart review for breast cancer outcomes research: a novel natural language processing extraction system.

Yifu Chen, Lucy Hao, Vito Z Zou, Zsuzsanna Hollander, Raymond T Ng, Kathryn V Isaac

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors.

Yifu ChenDepartment of Computer Science, University of British Columbia, Faculty of Science, 201-2366 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada.
Lucy HaoDepartment of Computer Science, University of British Columbia, Faculty of Science, 201-2366 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada.
Vito Z ZouDepartment of Surgery, University of British Columbia, Faculty of Medicine, 2221 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada.
Zsuzsanna HollanderDepartment of Computer Science, University of British Columbia, Faculty of Science, 201-2366 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada.
Raymond T NgDepartment of Computer Science, University of British Columbia, Faculty of Science, 201-2366 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada.
Kathryn V IsaacDepartment of Surgery, University of British Columbia, Faculty of Medicine, 2221 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada. kathryn.isaac@ubc.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundManually extracted data points from health records are collated on an institutional, provincial, and national level to facilitate clinical research. However, the labour-intensive clinical chart review process puts an increasing burden on healthcare system budgets. Therefore, an automated information extraction system is needed to ensure the timeliness and scalability of research data.

methodsWe used a dataset of 100 synoptic operative and 100 pathology reports, evenly split into 50 reports in training and test sets for each report type. The training set guided our development of a Natural Language Processing (NLP) extraction pipeline system, which accepts scanned images of operative and pathology reports. The system uses a combination of rule-based and transfer learning methods to extract numeric encodings from text. We also developed visualization tools to compare the manual and automated extractions. The code for this paper was made available on GitHub.

resultsA test set of 50 operative and 50 pathology reports were used to evaluate the extraction accuracies of the NLP pipeline. Gold standard, defined as manual extraction by expert reviewers, yielded accuracies of 90.5% for operative reports and 96.0% for pathology reports, while the NLP system achieved overall 91.9% (operative) and 95.4% (pathology) accuracy. The pipeline successfully extracted outcomes data pertinent to breast cancer tumor characteristics (e.g. presence of invasive carcinoma, size, histologic type), prognostic factors (e.g. number of lymph nodes with micro-metastases and macro-metastases, pathologic stage), and treatment-related variables (e.g. margins, neo-adjuvant treatment, surgical indication) with high accuracy. Out of the 48 variables across operative and pathology codebooks, NLP yielded 43 variables with F-scores of at least 0.90; in comparison, a trained human annotator yielded 44 variables with F-scores of at least 0.90.

conclusionsThe NLP system achieves near-human-level accuracy in both operative and pathology reports using a minimal curated dataset. This system uniquely provides a robust solution for transparent, adaptable, and scalable automation of data extraction from patient health records. It may serve to advance breast cancer clinical research by facilitating collection of vast amounts of valuable health data at a population level.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsNatural Language ProcessingElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalOutcome Assessment, Health CareResearch ReportBreast cancerHealth dataNatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID35549854
PMCPMC9101856

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.