Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38913244›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2024

Machine learning and deep learning for classifying the justification of brain CT referrals.

Jaka Potočnik, Edel Thomas, Aonghus Lawlor, Dearbhla Kearney, Eric J Heffernan, Ronan P Killeen, Shane J Foley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

Jaka PotočnikUniversity College Dublin School of Medicine, Dublin, Ireland. jaka.potocnik@ucd.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8353-1215
Edel ThomasUniversity College Dublin School of Medicine, Dublin, Ireland. edel.thomas@ucd.ie.
Aonghus LawlorUniversity College Dublin School of Computer Science, Dublin, Ireland. aonghus.lawlor@ucd.ie.
Dearbhla KearneyMater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. dearbhlakearney92@gmail.com.
Eric J HeffernanSt. Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. ericjheffernan@gmail.com.
Ronan P KilleenUniversity College Dublin School of Medicine, Dublin, Ireland. ronanpkilleen@gmail.com.
Shane J FoleyUniversity College Dublin School of Medicine, Dublin, Ireland. shane.foley@ucd.ie.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo train the machine and deep learning models to automate the justification analysis of radiology referrals in accordance with iGuide categorisation, and to determine if prediction models can generalise across multiple clinical sites and outperform human experts.

methodsAdult brain computed tomography (CT) referrals from scans performed in three CT centres in Ireland in 2020 and 2021 were retrospectively collected. Two radiographers analysed the justification of 3000 randomly selected referrals using iGuide, with two consultant radiologists analysing the referrals with disagreement. Insufficient or duplicate referrals were discarded. The inter-rater agreement among radiographers and consultants was computed. A random split (4:1) was performed to apply machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) techniques to unstructured clinical indications to automate retrospective justification auditing with multi-class classification. The accuracy and macro-averaged F1 score of the best-performing classifier of each type on the training set were computed on the test set.

results42 referrals were ignored. 1909 (64.5%) referrals were justified, 811 (27.4%) were potentially justified, and 238 (8.1%) were unjustified. The agreement between radiographers (κ = 0.268) was lower than radiologists (κ = 0.460). The best-performing ML model was the bag-of-words-based gradient-boosting classifier achieving a 94.4% accuracy and a macro F1 of 0.94. DL models were inferior, with bi-directional long short-term memory achieving 92.3% accuracy, a macro F1 of 0.92, and outperforming multilayer perceptrons.

conclusionInterpreting unstructured clinical indications is challenging necessitating clinical decision support. ML and DL can generalise across multiple clinical sites, outperform human experts, and be used as an artificial intelligence-based iGuide interpreter when retrospectively vetting radiology referrals. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Healthcare vendors and clinical sites should consider developing and utilising artificial intelligence-enabled systems for justifying medical exposures. This would enable better implementation of imaging referral guidelines in clinical practices and reduce population dose burden, CT waiting lists, and wasteful use of resources. KEY POINTS: Significant variations exist among human experts in interpreting unstructured clinical indications/patient presentations. Machine and deep learning can automate the justification analysis of radiology referrals according to iGuide categorisation. Machine and deep learning can improve retrospective and prospective justification auditing for better implementation of imaging referral guidelines.

Indexed as

Deep LearningMachine LearningReferral and ConsultationTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultAgedBrainFemaleHumansIrelandMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesClinical decision supportDeep learningJustificationMachine learningRadiology

Identifiers

PMID38913244
PMCPMC11557633

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.