Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37025805›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

Natural language processing in urology: Automated extraction of clinical information from histopathology reports of uro-oncology procedures.

Honghong Huang, Fiona Xin Yi Lim, Gary Tianyu Gu, Matthew Jiangchou Han, Andrew Hao Sen Fang, Elian Hui San Chia, Eileen Yen Tze Bei, Sarah Zhuling Tham, Henry Sun Sien Ho, John Shyi Peng Yuen and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

12 authors.

Honghong HuangDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Fiona Xin Yi LimSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Gary Tianyu GuDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Matthew Jiangchou HanDepartment of Future Health System, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Andrew Hao Sen FangDoctor Anywhere, Singapore.
Elian Hui San ChiaOffice of Insights & Analytics, Singapore Health Services, Singapore.
Eileen Yen Tze BeiDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Sarah Zhuling ThamDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Henry Sun Sien HoDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
John Shyi Peng YuenDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Aixin SunSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Jay Kheng Sit LimDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: We aimed to automate routine extraction of clinically relevant unstructured information from uro-oncological histopathology reports by applying rule-based and machine learning (ML)/deep learning (DL) methods to develop an oncology focused natural language processing (NLP) algorithm. Methods: Our algorithm employs a combination of a rule-based approach and support vector machines/neural networks (BioBert/Clinical BERT), and is optimised for accuracy. We randomly extracted 5772 uro-oncological histology reports from 2008 to 2018 from electronic health records (EHRs) and split the data into training and validation datasets in an 80:20 ratio. The training dataset was annotated by medical professionals and reviewed by cancer registrars. The validation dataset was annotated by cancer registrars and defined as the gold standard with which the algorithm outcomes were compared. The accuracy of NLP-parsed data was matched against these human annotation results. We defined an accuracy rate of >95% as "acceptable" by professional human extraction, as per our cancer registry definition. Results: There were 11 extraction variables in 268 free-text reports. We achieved an accuracy rate of between 61.2% and 99.0% using our algorithm. Of the 11 data fields, a total of 8 data fields met the acceptable accuracy standard, while another 3 data fields had an accuracy rate between 61.2% and 89.7%. Noticeably, the rule-based approach was shown to be more effective and robust in extracting variables of interest. On the other hand, ML/DL models had poorer predictive performances due to highly imbalanced data distribution and variable writing styles between different reports and data used for domain-specific pre-trained models. Conclusion: We designed an NLP algorithm that can automate clinical information extraction accurately from histopathology reports with an overall average micro accuracy of 93.3%.

Indexed as

Cancer registryDeep learningMachine learningNatural language processingUro-oncology histology reports

Identifiers

PMID37025805
PMCPMC10070081

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.