Dirk Marwede1, Thomas Schulz, Thomas Kahn. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Leipzig, Liebigstr. 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. dirk.marwede@medizin.uni-leipzig.de
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To validate a preliminary version of a radiological lexicon (RadLex) against terms found in thoracic CT reports and to index report content in RadLex term categories. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Terms from a random sample of 200 thoracic CT reports were extracted using a text processor and matched against RadLex. Report content was manually indexed by two radiologists in consensus in term categories of Anatomic Location, Finding, Modifier, Relationship, Image Quality, and Uncertainty. Descriptive statistics were used and differences between age groups and report types were tested for significance using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney Test (significance level <0.05). RESULTS: From 363 terms extracted, 304 (84%) were found and 59 (16%) were not found in RadLex. Report indexing showed a mean of 16.2 encoded items per report and 3.2 Finding per report. Term categories most frequently encoded were Modifier (1,030 of 3,244, 31.8%), Anatomic Location (813, 25.1%), Relationship (702, 21.6%) and Finding (638, 19.7%). Frequency of indexed items per report was higher in older age groups, but no significant difference was found between first study and follow up study reports. Frequency of distinct findings per report increased with patient age (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: RadLex already covers most terms present in thoracic CT reports based on a small sample analysis from one institution. Applications for report encoding need to be developed to validate the lexicon against a larger sample of reports and address the issue of automatic relationship encoding.
INTRODUCTION: To validate a preliminary version of a radiological lexicon (RadLex) against terms found in thoracic CT reports and to index report content in RadLex term categories. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Terms from a random sample of 200 thoracic CT reports were extracted using a text processor and matched against RadLex. Report content was manually indexed by two radiologists in consensus in term categories of Anatomic Location, Finding, Modifier, Relationship, Image Quality, and Uncertainty. Descriptive statistics were used and differences between age groups and report types were tested for significance using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney Test (significance level <0.05). RESULTS: From 363 terms extracted, 304 (84%) were found and 59 (16%) were not found in RadLex. Report indexing showed a mean of 16.2 encoded items per report and 3.2 Finding per report. Term categories most frequently encoded were Modifier (1,030 of 3,244, 31.8%), Anatomic Location (813, 25.1%), Relationship (702, 21.6%) and Finding (638, 19.7%). Frequency of indexed items per report was higher in older age groups, but no significant difference was found between first study and follow up study reports. Frequency of distinct findings per report increased with patient age (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: RadLex already covers most terms present in thoracic CT reports based on a small sample analysis from one institution. Applications for report encoding need to be developed to validate the lexicon against a larger sample of reports and address the issue of automatic relationship encoding.
Authors: S Nahum Goldberg; J William Charboneau; Gerald D Dodd; Damian E Dupuy; Debra A Gervais; Alice R Gillams; Robert A Kane; Fred T Lee; Tito Livraghi; John P McGahan; Hyunchul Rhim; Stuart G Silverman; Luigi Solbiati; Thomas J Vogl; Bradford J Wood Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: J H Austin; N L Müller; P J Friedman; D M Hansell; D P Naidich; M Remy-Jardin; W R Webb; E A Zerhouni Journal: Radiology Date: 1996-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Claudia D Furtado; Diego A Aguirre; Claude B Sirlin; David Dang; Stephan K Stamato; Patrick Lee; Farhad Sani; Michelle A Brown; David L Levin; Giovanna Casola Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-09-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: R K Taira; D B Johnson; V Bhushan; M Rivera; C Wong; L Huang; D R Aberle; M Greaves; J G Goldin Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 1996-02 Impact factor: 4.056