ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2025
A Large Language Model to Detect Negated Expressions in Radiology Reports.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Performance of Natural Language Processing Model in Extracting Information from Free-Text Radiology Reports: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Who labels best? Radiologists, rules, or large language models for CT reports on pulmonary embolism.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Natural Language Processing-Based Triage of Superficial Soft Tissue Ultrasound Reports in Orthopedic Practice.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Natural language processing (NLP) is crucial to extract information accurately from unstructured text to provide insights for clinical decision-making, quality improvement, and medical research. This study compared the performance of a rule-based NLP system and a medical-domain transformer-based model to detect negated concepts in radiology reports. Using a corpus of 984 de-identified radiology reports from a large U.S.-based academic health system (1000 consecutive reports, excluding 16 duplicates), the investigators compared the rule-based medspaCy system and the Clinical Assertion and Negation Classification Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (CAN-BERT) system to detect negated expressions of terms from RadLex, the Unified Medical Language System Metathesaurus, and the Radiology Gamuts Ontology. Power analysis determined a sample size of 382 terms to achieve α = 0.05 and β = 0.8 for McNemar's test; based on an estimate of 15% negated terms, 2800 randomly selected terms were annotated manually as negated or not negated. Precision, recall, and F1 of the two models were compared using McNemar's test. Of the 2800 terms, 387 (13.8%) were negated. For negation detection, medspaCy attained a recall of 0.795, precision of 0.356, and F1 of 0.492. CAN-BERT achieved a recall of 0.785, precision of 0.768, and F1 of 0.777. Although recall was not significantly different, CAN-BERT had significantly better precision (χ2 = 304.64; p < 0.001). The transformer-based CAN-BERT model detected negated terms in radiology reports with high precision and recall; its precision significantly exceeded that of the rule-based medspaCy system. Use of this system will improve data extraction from textual reports to support information retrieval, AI model training, and discovery of causal relationships.
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.