ArticleEuropean radiology2023
Investigating the impact of structured reporting on the linguistic standardization of radiology reports through natural language processing over a 10-year period.
Article in European radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Evaluation of large language models for diagnostic impression generation from brain MRI report findings: a multicenter benchmark and reader study.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Development and Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of a Structured Reporting Template for Emergency Radiology Using Synthetic Cases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Automated MRI pituitary structured reporting from free-text using a fine-tuned Llama model: a feasibility study.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Utilizing a domain-specific large language model for LI-RADS v2018 categorization of free-text MRI reports: a feasibility study.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- From data to insights: how natural language processing and structured reporting advance data-driven radiology.European radiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate how a transition from free text to structured reporting affects reporting language with regard to standardization and distinguishability.
methodsA total of 747,393 radiology reports dictated between January 2011 and June 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The body and cardiothoracic imaging divisions introduced a reporting concept using standardized language and structured reporting templates in January 2016. Reports were segmented by a natural language processing algorithm and converted into a 20-dimension document vector. For analysis, dimensionality was reduced to a 2D visualization with t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding and matched with metadata. Linguistic standardization was assessed by comparing distinct report types' vector spreads (e.g., run-off MR angiography) between reporting standards. Changes in report type distinguishability (e.g., CT abdomen/pelvis vs. MR abdomen) were measured by comparing the distance between their centroids.
resultsStructured reports showed lower document vector spread (thus higher linguistic similarity) compared with free-text reports overall (21.9 [free-text] vs. 15.9 [structured]; - 27.4%; p < 0.001) and for most report types, e.g., run-off MR angiography (15.2 vs. 1.8; - 88.2%; p < 0.001) or double-rule-out CT (26.8 vs. 10.0; - 62.7%; p < 0.001). No changes were observed for reports continued to be written in free text, e.g., CT head reports (33.2 vs. 33.1; - 0.3%; p = 1). Distances between the report types' centroids increased with structured reporting (thus better linguistic distinguishability) overall (27.3 vs. 54.4; + 99.3 ± 98.4%) and for specific report types, e.g., CT abdomen/pelvis vs. MR abdomen (13.7 vs. 37.2; + 171.5%).
conclusionStructured reporting and the use of factual language yield more homogenous and standardized radiology reports on a linguistic level, tailored to specific reporting scenarios and imaging studies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Information transmission to referring physicians, as well as automated report assessment and content extraction in big data analyses, may benefit from standardized reporting, due to consistent report organization and terminology used for pathologies and normal findings. KEY POINTS: • Natural language processing and t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding can transform radiology reports into numeric vectors, allowing the quantification of their linguistic standardization. • Structured reporting substantially increases reports' linguistic standardization (mean: - 27.4% in vector spread) and distinguishability (mean: + 99.3 ± 98.4% increase in vector distance) compared with free-text reports. • Higher standardization and homogeneity outline potential benefits of structured reporting for information transmission and big data analyses.
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.