Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36416419›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2023

Automated deidentification of radiology reports combining transformer and "hide in plain sight" rule-based methods.

Pierre J Chambon, Christopher Wu, Jackson M Steinkamp, Jason Adleberg, Tessa S Cook, Curtis P Langlotz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Developing a Research Center for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2024
    Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Pierre J ChambonDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7394-3729
Christopher WuDepartment of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Jackson M SteinkampDepartment of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Jason AdlebergDepartment of Radiology, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, New York, USA.
Tessa S CookDepartment of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Curtis P LanglotzDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.

Funding

RADX TECH - CERES NANOSCIENCE INC NANOTRAP PARTICLE MANUFACTURING75N92020C00021 · NHLBI · CERES NANOSCIENCES, LLLP · PI DUNLAP, ROSS · 2021 to 2021
$4.0M
NHLBI NIH HHS 75N92020C00008NHLBI NIH HHS 75N92020C00021NIH HHS 75N92020C00008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop an automated deidentification pipeline for radiology reports that detect protected health information (PHI) entities and replaces them with realistic surrogates "hiding in plain sight." MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this retrospective study, 999 chest X-ray and CT reports collected between November 2019 and November 2020 were annotated for PHI at the token level and combined with 3001 X-rays and 2193 medical notes previously labeled, forming a large multi-institutional and cross-domain dataset of 6193 documents. Two radiology test sets, from a known and a new institution, as well as i2b2 2006 and 2014 test sets, served as an evaluation set to estimate model performance and to compare it with previously released deidentification tools. Several PHI detection models were developed based on different training datasets, fine-tuning approaches and data augmentation techniques, and a synthetic PHI generation algorithm. These models were compared using metrics such as precision, recall and F1 score, as well as paired samples Wilcoxon tests.

resultsOur best PHI detection model achieves 97.9 F1 score on radiology reports from a known institution, 99.6 from a new institution, 99.5 on i2b2 2006, and 98.9 on i2b2 2014. On reports from a known institution, it achieves 99.1 recall of detecting the core of each PHI span. DISCUSSION: Our model outperforms all deidentifiers it was compared to on all test sets as well as human labelers on i2b2 2014 data. It enables accurate and automatic deidentification of radiology reports.

conclusionsA transformer-based deidentification pipeline can achieve state-of-the-art performance for deidentifying radiology reports and other medical documents.

Indexed as

Data AnonymizationRadiologyAlgorithmsHealth FacilitiesHumansNatural Language ProcessingRetrospective Studiesdeidentificationmachine learningNLPradiologytransformer

Identifiers

PMID36416419
PMCPMC9846681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.