Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37726485›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2023

Natural language processing for automatic evaluation of free-text answers - a feasibility study based on the European Diploma in Radiology examination.

Fabian Stoehr, Benedikt Kämpgen, Lukas Müller, Laura Oleaga Zufiría, Vanesa Junquero, Cristina Merino, Peter Mildenberger, Roman Kloeckner

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insights into imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Fabian StoehrDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Langenbeckst, 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
Benedikt KämpgenEmpolis Information Management GmbH, Leightonstraße 2, 97074, Würzburg, Germany.
Lukas MüllerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Langenbeckst, 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
Laura Oleaga ZufiríaDepartment of Radiology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, C. de Villarroel, 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain.
Vanesa JunqueroEuropean Board of Radiology (EBR), Barcelona, Spain.
Cristina MerinoEuropean Board of Radiology (EBR), Barcelona, Spain.
Peter MildenbergerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Langenbeckst, 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
Roman KloecknerInstitute of Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23583, Luebeck, Germany. Roman.Kloeckner@uksh.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5492-4792
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DEEmpolis (Germany) · DEHospital Clínic de Barcelona · ESUniversity Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWritten medical examinations consist of multiple-choice questions and/or free-text answers. The latter require manual evaluation and rating, which is time-consuming and potentially error-prone. We tested whether natural language processing (NLP) can be used to automatically analyze free-text answers to support the review process.

methodsThe European Board of Radiology of the European Society of Radiology provided representative datasets comprising sample questions, answer keys, participant answers, and reviewer markings from European Diploma in Radiology examinations. Three free-text questions with the highest number of corresponding answers were selected: Questions 1 and 2 were "unstructured" and required a typical free-text answer whereas question 3 was "structured" and offered a selection of predefined wordings/phrases for participants to use in their free-text answer. The NLP engine was designed using word lists, rule-based synonyms, and decision tree learning based on the answer keys and its performance tested against the gold standard of reviewer markings.

resultsAfter implementing the NLP approach in Python, F1 scores were calculated as a measure of NLP performance: 0.26 (unstructured question 1, n = 96), 0.33 (unstructured question 2, n = 327), and 0.5 (more structured question, n = 111). The respective precision/recall values were 0.26/0.27, 0.4/0.32, and 0.62/0.55.

conclusionThis study showed the successful design of an NLP-based approach for automatic evaluation of free-text answers in the EDiR examination. Thus, as a future field of application, NLP could work as a decision-support system for reviewers and support the design of examinations being adjusted to the requirements of an automated, NLP-based review process. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Natural language processing can be successfully used to automatically evaluate free-text answers, performing better with more structured question-answer formats. Furthermore, this study provides a baseline for further work applying, e.g., more elaborated NLP approaches/large language models. KEY POINTS: • Free-text answers require manual evaluation, which is time-consuming and potentially error-prone. • We developed a simple NLP-based approach - requiring only minimal effort/modeling - to automatically analyze and mark free-text answers. • Our NLP engine has the potential to support the manual evaluation process. • NLP performance is better on a more structured question-answer format.

Indexed as

AutomatizationEducationFree-text answersNatural language processingRadiological

Identifiers

PMID37726485
PMCPMC10509084
OpenAlexW4386857362

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.