Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39695672›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024

Uncertainty-aware automatic TNM staging classification for [

Stephen H Barlow, Sugama Chicklore, Yulan He, Sebastien Ourselin, Thomas Wagner, Anna Barnes, Gary J R Cook

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Stephen H BarlowSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK. stephen.barlow@kcl.ac.uk.
Sugama ChickloreSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Yulan HeDepartment of Informatics, King's College London, London, UK.
Sebastien OurselinSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Thomas WagnerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
Anna Barnes *School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Gary J R Cook *School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK C1519/A28682EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Medical Imaging EP/T517963/1Wellcome WT 203148/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background[

methods2498 reports were annotated by a nuclear medicine physician and split into train, validation, and test datasets. For additional evaluation an external dataset (n = 461 reports) was created, and annotated by two nuclear medicine physicians with agreement reached on all examples. We trained and evaluated eleven publicly available PLMs to determine which is most effective for PET-CT reports, and compared multi-task, single task and traditional machine learning approaches.

resultsWe find that a multi-task approach with GatorTron as PLM achieves the best performance, with an overall accuracy (all four tasks correct) of 84% and a Hamming loss of 0.05 on the internal test dataset, and 79% and 0.07 on the external test dataset. Performance on the individual TNM tasks approached expert performance with macro average F1 scores of 0.91, 0.95 and 0.90 respectively on external data. For uncertainty an F1 of 0.77 is achieved.

conclusionsOur 'TNMu' classifier successfully extracts TNM staging information from internal and external PET-CT reports. We concluded that multi-task approaches result in the best performance, and better computational efficiency over single task PLM approaches. We believe these models can improve PET-CT services by assisting in auditing, creating research cohorts, and developing decision support systems. Our approach to handling uncertainty represents a novel first step but has room for further refinement.

Indexed as

Fluorodeoxyglucose F18Lung NeoplasmsMachine LearningNeoplasm StagingPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyHumansNatural Language ProcessingRadiopharmaceuticalsUncertaintyFluorodeoxyglucose F18RadiopharmaceuticalsDeep learningElectronic health recordsMedical imagingNatural language processingPET-CTPretrained language modelsRadiologyTransformer

Identifiers

PMID39695672
PMCPMC11657742

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.