INTRODUCTION: Communication of critical imaging findings is an important component of medical quality and safety. A fundamental challenge includes retrieval of radiology reports that contain these findings. This study describes the expressiveness and coverage of existing medical terminologies for critical imaging findings and evaluates radiology report retrieval using each terminology. METHODS: Four terminologies were evaluated: National Cancer Institute Thesaurus (NCIT), Radiology Lexicon (RadLex), Systemized Nomenclature of Medicine (SNOMED-CT), and International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9-CM). Concepts in each terminology were identified for 10 critical imaging findings. Three findings were subsequently selected to evaluate document retrieval. RESULTS: SNOMED-CT consistently demonstrated the highest number of overall terms (mean=22) for each of ten critical findings. However, retrieval rate and precision varied between terminologies for the three findings evaluated. CONCLUSION: No single terminology is optimal for retrieving radiology reports with critical findings. The expressiveness of a terminology does not consistently correlate with radiology report retrieval.
INTRODUCTION: Communication of critical imaging findings is an important component of medical quality and safety. A fundamental challenge includes retrieval of radiology reports that contain these findings. This study describes the expressiveness and coverage of existing medical terminologies for critical imaging findings and evaluates radiology report retrieval using each terminology. METHODS: Four terminologies were evaluated: National Cancer Institute Thesaurus (NCIT), Radiology Lexicon (RadLex), Systemized Nomenclature of Medicine (SNOMED-CT), and International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9-CM). Concepts in each terminology were identified for 10 critical imaging findings. Three findings were subsequently selected to evaluate document retrieval. RESULTS: SNOMED-CT consistently demonstrated the highest number of overall terms (mean=22) for each of ten critical findings. However, retrieval rate and precision varied between terminologies for the three findings evaluated. CONCLUSION: No single terminology is optimal for retrieving radiology reports with critical findings. The expressiveness of a terminology does not consistently correlate with radiology report retrieval.
Authors: James E Andrews; Timothy B Patrick; Rachel L Richesson; Hana Brown; Jeffrey P Krischer Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-02-05 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Katherine P Andriole; Luciano M Prevedello; Allen Dufault; Parham Pezeshk; Robert Bransfield; Richard Hanson; Peter M Doubilet; Steven E Seltzer; Ramin Khorasani Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Zihao Yan; Ronilda Lacson; Ivan Ip; Vladimir Valtchinov; Ali Raja; David Osterbur; Ramin Khorasani Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2017-02-10
Authors: Ronilda Lacson; Luciano M Prevedello; Katherine P Andriole; Stacy D O'Connor; Christopher Roy; Tejal Gandhi; Anuj K Dalal; Luke Sato; Ramin Khorasani Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Anandhi Iyappan; Erfan Younesi; Alberto Redolfi; Henri Vrooman; Shashank Khanna; Giovanni B Frisoni; Martin Hofmann-Apitius Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2017 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Christophe Gaudet-Blavignac; Vasiliki Foufi; Mina Bjelogrlic; Christian Lovis Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-01-26 Impact factor: 5.428