ArticleCommunications medicine2021
Development and multicenter validation of chest X-ray radiography interpretations based on natural language processing.
Article in Communications medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fully automated artificial intelligence-based coronary CT angiography image processing: efficiency, diagnostic capability, and risk stratification.European radiology · 2024Trial
- Comparison of Chest Radiograph Captions Based on Natural Language Processing vs Completed by Radiologists.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- Trends and Trajectories in the Rise of Large Language Models in Radiology: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- NLP-Driven Analysis of Pneumothorax Incidence Following Central Venous Catheter Procedures: A Data-Driven Re-Evaluation of Routine Imaging in Value-Based Medicine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Development and Evaluation of a Natural Language Processing System for Curating a Trans-Thoracic Echocardiogram (TTE) Database.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Automated labelling of radiology reports using natural language processing: Comparison of traditional and newer methods.Health care science · 2023Review
- Development and Validation of a Model to Identify Critical Brain Injuries Using Natural Language Processing of Text Computed Tomography Reports.JAMA network open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence can assist in interpreting chest X-ray radiography (CXR) data, but large datasets require efficient image annotation. The purpose of this study is to extract CXR labels from diagnostic reports based on natural language processing, train convolutional neural networks (CNNs), and evaluate the classification performance of CNN using CXR data from multiple centers. Methods: We collected the CXR images and corresponding radiology reports of 74,082 subjects as the training dataset. The linguistic entities and relationships from unstructured radiology reports were extracted by the bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) model, and a knowledge graph was constructed to represent the association between image labels of abnormal signs and the report text of CXR. Then, a 25-label classification system were built to train and test the CNN models with weakly supervised labeling. Results: In three external test cohorts of 5,996 symptomatic patients, 2,130 screening examinees, and 1,804 community clinic patients, the mean AUC of identifying 25 abnormal signs by CNN reaches 0.866 ± 0.110, 0.891 ± 0.147, and 0.796 ± 0.157, respectively. In symptomatic patients, CNN shows no significant difference with local radiologists in identifying 21 signs (p > 0.05), but is poorer for 4 signs (p < 0.05). In screening examinees, CNN shows no significant difference for 17 signs (p > 0.05), but is poorer at classifying nodules (p = 0.013). In community clinic patients, CNN shows no significant difference for 12 signs (p > 0.05), but performs better for 6 signs (p < 0.001). Conclusion: We construct and validate an effective CXR interpretation system based on natural language processing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.