Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36980376›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Performance and Agreement When Annotating Chest X-ray Text Reports-A Preliminary Step in the Development of a Deep Learning-Based Prioritization and Detection System.

Dana Li, Lea Marie Pehrson, Rasmus Bonnevie, Marco Fraccaro, Jakob Thrane, Lea Tøttrup, Carsten Ammitzbøl Lauridsen, Sedrah Butt Balaganeshan, Jelena Jankovic, Tobias Thostrup Andersen and 5 more

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

15 authors.

Dana LiDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lea Marie PehrsonDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Rasmus BonnevieUnumed Aps, 1055 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Marco FraccaroUnumed Aps, 1055 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jakob ThraneUnumed Aps, 1055 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lea TøttrupUnumed Aps, 1055 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Carsten Ammitzbøl LauridsenDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Sedrah Butt BalaganeshanNovo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-0275-7440
Jelena JankovicDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Tobias Thostrup AndersenDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Alyas MayarDepartment of Health Sciences, Panum Institute, University of Copenhagen, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Kristoffer Lindskov HansenDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jonathan Frederik CarlsenDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-6724-7281
Sune DarknerDepartment of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Michael Bachmann NielsenDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-9380-1688

Funding

Innovation Fund Denmark 0176-00013B
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A chest X-ray report is a communicative tool and can be used as data for developing artificial intelligence-based decision support systems. For both, consistent understanding and labeling is important. Our aim was to investigate how readers would comprehend and annotate 200 chest X-ray reports. Reports written between 1 January 2015 and 11 March 2022 were selected based on search words. Annotators included three board-certified radiologists, two trained radiologists (physicians), two radiographers (radiological technicians), a non-radiological physician, and a medical student. Consensus labels by two or more of the experienced radiologists were considered "gold standard". Matthew's correlation coefficient (MCC) was calculated to assess annotation performance, and descriptive statistics were used to assess agreement between individual annotators and labels. The intermediate radiologist had the best correlation to "gold standard" (MCC 0.77). This was followed by the novice radiologist and medical student (MCC 0.71 for both), the novice radiographer (MCC 0.65), non-radiological physician (MCC 0.64), and experienced radiographer (MCC 0.57). Our findings showed that for developing an artificial intelligence-based support system, if trained radiologists are not available, annotations from non-radiological annotators with basic and general knowledge may be more aligned with radiologists compared to annotations from sub-specialized medical staff, if their sub-specialization is outside of diagnostic radiology.

Indexed as

agreementartificial intelligencechest X-raydatadeep learningdevelopmentperformanceradiologiststext annotation

Identifiers

PMID36980376
PMCPMC10047142

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read10
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.