PURPOSE: The study purpose was to describe the use of natural language processing (NLP) and online analytic processing (OLAP) for assessing patterns in recommendations in unstructured radiology reports on the basis of patient and imaging characteristics, such as age, gender, referring physicians, radiology subspecialty, modality, indications, diseases, and patient status (inpatient vs outpatient). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A database of 4,279,179 radiology reports from a single tertiary health care center during a 10-year period (1995-2004) was created. The database includes reports of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, fluoroscopy, nuclear medicine, ultrasound, radiography, mammography, angiography, special procedures, and unclassified imaging tests with patient demographics. A clinical data mining and analysis NLP program (Leximer, Nuance Inc, Burlington, Massachusetts) in conjunction with OLAP was used for classifying reports into those with recommendations (I(REC)) and without recommendations (N(REC)) for imaging and determining I(REC) rates for different patient age groups, gender, imaging modalities, indications, diseases, subspecialties, and referring physicians. In addition, temporal trends for I(REC) were also determined. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in the I(REC) rates in different age groups, varying between 4.8% (10-19 years) and 9.5% (>70 years) (P <.0001). Significant variations in I(REC) rates were observed for different imaging modalities, with the highest rates for computed tomography (17.3%, 100,493/581,032). The I(REC) rates varied significantly for different subspecialties and among radiologists within a subspecialty (P < .0001). For most modalities, outpatients had a higher rate of recommendations when compared with inpatients. CONCLUSION: The radiology reports database analyzed with NLP in conjunction with OLAP revealed considerable differences between recommendation trends for different imaging modalities and other patient and imaging characteristics.
PURPOSE: The study purpose was to describe the use of natural language processing (NLP) and online analytic processing (OLAP) for assessing patterns in recommendations in unstructured radiology reports on the basis of patient and imaging characteristics, such as age, gender, referring physicians, radiology subspecialty, modality, indications, diseases, and patient status (inpatient vs outpatient). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A database of 4,279,179 radiology reports from a single tertiary health care center during a 10-year period (1995-2004) was created. The database includes reports of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, fluoroscopy, nuclear medicine, ultrasound, radiography, mammography, angiography, special procedures, and unclassified imaging tests with patient demographics. A clinical data mining and analysis NLP program (Leximer, Nuance Inc, Burlington, Massachusetts) in conjunction with OLAP was used for classifying reports into those with recommendations (I(REC)) and without recommendations (N(REC)) for imaging and determining I(REC) rates for different patient age groups, gender, imaging modalities, indications, diseases, subspecialties, and referring physicians. In addition, temporal trends for I(REC) were also determined. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in the I(REC) rates in different age groups, varying between 4.8% (10-19 years) and 9.5% (>70 years) (P <.0001). Significant variations in I(REC) rates were observed for different imaging modalities, with the highest rates for computed tomography (17.3%, 100,493/581,032). The I(REC) rates varied significantly for different subspecialties and among radiologists within a subspecialty (P < .0001). For most modalities, outpatients had a higher rate of recommendations when compared with inpatients. CONCLUSION: The radiology reports database analyzed with NLP in conjunction with OLAP revealed considerable differences between recommendation trends for different imaging modalities and other patient and imaging characteristics.
Authors: Máté E Maros; Ralf Wenz; Alex Förster; Matthias F Froelich; Christoph Groden; Wieland H Sommer; Stefan O Schönberg; Thomas Henzler; Holger Wenz Journal: In Vivo Date: 2018 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Elizabeth H Dibble; David W Swenson; Cynthia Cobb; Timothy J Paul; Andrew E Karn; David C Portelli; Jonathan S Movson Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2016-10-14
Authors: H Benjamin Harvey; Matthew D Gilman; Carol C Wu; Matthew S Cushing; Elkan F Halpern; Jing Zhao; Pari V Pandharipande; Jo-Anne O Shepard; Tarik K Alkasab Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-12-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Vinay M Pai; Mary Rodgers; Richard Conroy; James Luo; Ruixia Zhou; Belinda Seto Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-08-06 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Andrew L Callen; Sara M Dupont; Adi Price; Ben Laguna; David McCoy; Bao Do; Jason Talbott; Marc Kohli; Jared Narvid Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2020-08-19 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Ryan W Woods; Louis Oliphant; Kazuhiko Shinki; David Page; Jude Shavlik; Elizabeth Burnside Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 4.056