ArticleJournal of digital imaging2022
Ensemble Approaches to Recognize Protected Health Information in Radiology Reports.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Best Practices for the Safe Use of Large Language Models and Other Generative AI in Radiology.Radiology · 2025Review
- Development and validation of an ensemble learning risk model for sepsis after abdominal surgery.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2025Article
- Comparison of an Ensemble of Machine Learning Models and the BERT Language Model for Analysis of Text Descriptions of Brain CT Reports to Determine the Presence of Intracranial Hemorrhage.Sovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Natural language processing (NLP) techniques for electronic health records have shown great potential to improve the quality of medical care. The text of radiology reports frequently constitutes a large fraction of EHR data, and can provide valuable information about patients' diagnoses, medical history, and imaging findings. The lack of a major public repository for radiological reports severely limits the development, testing, and application of new NLP tools. De-identification of protected health information (PHI) presents a major challenge to building such repositories, as many automated tools for de-identification were trained or designed for clinical notes and do not perform sufficiently well to build a public database of radiology reports. We developed and evaluated six ensemble models based on three publically available de-identification tools: MIT de-id, NeuroNER, and Philter. A set of 1023 reports was set aside as the testing partition. Two individuals with medical training annotated the test set for PHI; differences were resolved by consensus. Ensemble methods included simple voting schemes (1-Vote, 2-Votes, and 3-Votes), a decision tree, a naïve Bayesian classifier, and Adaboost boosting. The 1-Vote ensemble achieved recall of 998 / 1043 (95.7%); the 3-Votes ensemble had precision of 1035 / 1043 (99.2%). F1 scores were: 93.4% for the decision tree, 71.2% for the naïve Bayesian classifier, and 87.5% for the boosting method. Basic voting algorithms and machine learning classifiers incorporating the predictions of multiple tools can outperform each tool acting alone in de-identifying radiology reports. Ensemble methods hold substantial potential to improve automated de-identification tools for radiology reports to make such reports more available for research use to improve patient care and outcomes.
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.