Literature DB >> 22291166

Automatic classification of mammography reports by BI-RADS breast tissue composition class.

Bethany Percha1, Houssam Nassif, Jafi Lipson, Elizabeth Burnside, Daniel Rubin.   

Abstract

Because breast tissue composition partially predicts breast cancer risk, classification of mammography reports by breast tissue composition is important from both a scientific and clinical perspective. A method is presented for using the unstructured text of mammography reports to classify them into BI-RADS breast tissue composition categories. An algorithm that uses regular expressions to automatically determine BI-RADS breast tissue composition classes for unstructured mammography reports was developed. The algorithm assigns each report to a single BI-RADS composition class: 'fatty', 'fibroglandular', 'heterogeneously dense', 'dense', or 'unspecified'. We evaluated its performance on mammography reports from two different institutions. The method achieves >99% classification accuracy on a test set of reports from the Marshfield Clinic (Wisconsin) and Stanford University. Since large-scale studies of breast cancer rely heavily on breast tissue composition information, this method could facilitate this research by helping mine large datasets to correlate breast composition with other covariates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22291166      PMCID: PMC3422822          DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000607

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc        ISSN: 1067-5027            Impact factor:   4.497


  29 in total

1.  Family history, mammographic density, and risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  Lisa J Martin; Olga Melnichouk; Helen Guo; Anna M Chiarelli; T Gregory Hislop; Martin J Yaffe; Salomon Minkin; John L Hopper; Norman F Boyd
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  Automatically correlating clinical findings and body locations in radiology reports using MedLEE.

Authors:  Merlijn Sevenster; Rob van Ommering; Yuechen Qian
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Expressiveness of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Database System (BI-RADS).

Authors:  J Starren; S M Johnson
Journal:  Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp       Date:  1997

4.  Notations for high efficiency data presentation in mammography.

Authors:  J Starren; S M Johnson
Journal:  Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp       Date:  1996

Review 5.  Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer.

Authors:  Norman F Boyd; Johanna M Rommens; Kelly Vogt; Vivian Lee; John L Hopper; Martin J Yaffe; Andrew D Paterson
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 41.316

6.  Automated Classification of Radiology Reports for Acute Lung Injury: Comparison of Keyword and Machine Learning Based Natural Language Processing Approaches.

Authors:  Imre Solti; Colin R Cooke; Fei Xia; Mark M Wurfel
Journal:  Proceedings (IEEE Int Conf Bioinformatics Biomed)       Date:  2009-11

Review 7.  Uncovering and improving upon the inherent deficiencies of radiology reporting through data mining.

Authors:  Bruce Reiner
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.056

8.  Information Extraction for Clinical Data Mining: A Mammography Case Study.

Authors:  Houssam Nassif; Ryan Woods; Elizabeth Burnside; Mehmet Ayvaci; Jude Shavlik; David Page
Journal:  Proc IEEE Int Conf Data Min       Date:  2009

9.  Relationship between mammographic density and the risk of breast cancer in Japanese women: a case-control study.

Authors:  Yasuko Nagao; Yoshihiro Kawaguchi; Yasuyuki Sugiyama; Shietoyo Saji; Yoshitomo Kashiki
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.239

10.  Mammographic density and the risk of breast cancer in Japanese women.

Authors:  C Nagata; T Matsubara; H Fujita; Y Nagao; C Shibuya; Y Kashiki; H Shimizu
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2005-06-20       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  24 in total

1.  Using natural language processing to extract mammographic findings.

Authors:  Hongyuan Gao; Erin J Aiello Bowles; David Carrell; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 6.317

2.  Automatic inference of BI-RADS final assessment categories from narrative mammography report findings.

Authors:  Imon Banerjee; Selen Bozkurt; Emel Alkim; Hersh Sagreiya; Allison W Kurian; Daniel L Rubin
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2019-02-23       Impact factor: 6.317

3.  Automated extraction of BI-RADS final assessment categories from radiology reports with natural language processing.

Authors:  Dorothy A Sippo; Graham I Warden; Katherine P Andriole; Ronilda Lacson; Ichiro Ikuta; Robyn L Birdwell; Ramin Khorasani
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Electronic health records-driven phenotyping: challenges, recent advances, and perspectives.

Authors:  Jyotishman Pathak; Abel N Kho; Joshua C Denny
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.497

5.  Evaluation of an Automated Information Extraction Tool for Imaging Data Elements to Populate a Breast Cancer Screening Registry.

Authors:  Ronilda Lacson; Kimberly Harris; Phyllis Brawarsky; Tor D Tosteson; Tracy Onega; Anna N A Tosteson; Abby Kaye; Irina Gonzalez; Robyn Birdwell; Jennifer S Haas
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  Automated annotation and classification of BI-RADS assessment from radiology reports.

Authors:  Sergio M Castro; Eugene Tseytlin; Olga Medvedeva; Kevin Mitchell; Shyam Visweswaran; Tanja Bekhuis; Rebecca S Jacobson
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2017-04-18       Impact factor: 6.317

7.  Using statistical text classification to identify health information technology incidents.

Authors:  Kevin E K Chai; Stephen Anthony; Enrico Coiera; Farah Magrabi
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2013-05-10       Impact factor: 4.497

8.  Comparing Mammography Abnormality Features to Genetic Variants in the Prediction of Breast Cancer in Women Recommended for Breast Biopsy.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Burnside; Jie Liu; Yirong Wu; Adedayo A Onitilo; Catherine A McCarty; C David Page; Peggy L Peissig; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Terrie Kitchner; Jun Fan; Ming Yuan
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 9.  A systematic approach for using DICOM structured reports in clinical processes: focus on breast cancer.

Authors:  Rosana Medina García; Erik Torres Serrano; J Damian Segrelles Quilis; Ignacio Blanquer Espert; Luis Martí Bonmatí; Daniel Almenar Cubells
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 4.056

10.  Genetic variants improve breast cancer risk prediction on mammograms.

Authors:  Jie Liu; David Page; Houssam Nassif; Jude Shavlik; Peggy Peissig; Catherine McCarty; Adedayo A Onitilo; Elizabeth Burnside
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2013-11-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.