ReviewHealth care science2023
Automated labelling of radiology reports using natural language processing: Comparison of traditional and newer methods.
Review in Health care science, 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.
- Beyond Validation: Operationalising Post-Deployment Surveillance of AI Medical Devices in Clinical Practice.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Privacy-Preserving Large Language Model for Matching Findings and Tracking Interval Changes in Longitudinal Radiology Reports.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Classification of Interventional Radiology Reports into Technique Categories with a Fine-Tuned Large Language Model.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Fine-tuning of language models for automated structuring of medical exam reports to improve patient screening and analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- AI-driven integration of imaging and radiology language improves stroke mortality prediction.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Automated labelling of radiology reports using natural language processing: Comparison of traditional and newer methods.Health care science · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Automated labelling of radiology reports using natural language processing allows for the labelling of ground truth for large datasets of radiological studies that are required for training of computer vision models. This paper explains the necessary data preprocessing steps, reviews the main methods for automated labelling and compares their performance. There are four main methods of automated labelling, namely: (1) rules-based text-matching algorithms, (2) conventional machine learning models, (3) neural network models and (4) Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) models. Rules-based labellers perform a brute force search against manually curated keywords and are able to achieve high F1 scores. However, they require proper handling of negative words. Machine learning models require preprocessing that involves tokenization and vectorization of text into numerical vectors. Multilabel classification approaches are required in labelling radiology reports and conventional models can achieve good performance if they have large enough training sets. Deep learning models make use of connected neural networks, often a long short-term memory network, and are similarly able to achieve good performance if trained on a large data set. BERT is a transformer-based model that utilizes attention. Pretrained BERT models only require fine-tuning with small data sets. In particular, domain-specific BERT models can achieve superior performance compared with the other methods for automated labelling.
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.