ArticleHeliyon2024
Automated vs. manual coding of neuroimaging reports via natural language processing, using the international classification of diseases, tenth revision.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Across the Radiology Workflow: A Nine-Stage Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Underutilization of syndrome-specific ICD-10 codes for genetic epilepsies: Implications for precision medicine.Epilepsia · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Natural language processing (NLP) can generate diagnoses codes from imaging reports. Meanwhile, the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) codes are the United States' standard for billing/coding, which enable tracking disease burden and outcomes. This cross-sectional study aimed to test feasibility of an NLP algorithm's performance and comparison to radiologists' and physicians' manual coding. Methods: Three neuroradiologists and one non-radiologist physician reviewers manually coded a randomly-selected pool of 200 craniospinal CT and MRI reports from a pool of >10,000. The NLP algorithm ( Results: The algorithm extracted the reports' Impressions into 645 phrases, each having ranked ICD-10 matches. Regarding the reviewers' selected codes, pairwise agreement was unreliable ( Conclusions: Manual coding by physician reviewers has significant variability and is time-consuming, while the NLP algorithm's top 5 diagnosis codes are relatively accurate. This preliminary work demonstrates the feasibility and potential for generating codes with reliability and consistency. Future works may include correlating diagnosis codes with clinical encounter codes to evaluate imaging's impact on, and relevance to care.
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.