Literature DB >> 24935271

Anatomic and advanced adenoma detection rates as quality metrics determined via natural language processing.

Andrew J Gawron1, William K Thompson2, Rajesh N Keswani3, Luke V Rasmussen4, Abel N Kho5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to use an open-source natural language-processing tool (NLP) to accurately assess total, anatomic (left and right colon), and advanced adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and to determine how these metrics differ between high- and low-performing endoscopists.
METHODS: An NLP tool was developed using the Apache Unstructured Information Management Architecture and queried all procedure records for screening colonoscopies performed in patients aged 50-75 years at a single institution from April 1998 to December 2013. Validation was performed on 200 procedures and associated pathology reports. The total, left colon, right colon, and advanced ADRs were calculated and physicians were stratified by total ADR (<20% and ≥20%). Comparisons of colonoscopy characteristics and ADR comparisons (advanced, left, right, and right/left ratio) were determined by t-tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.
RESULTS: The total ADR for 34,998 screening colonoscopies from 1998 to 2013 was 20.3%, as determined via NLP. The institutional left and right colon ADRs were 10.1% and 12.5%, respectively. The overall advanced ADR was 4.4%. Endoscopists with total ADRs ≥20% had higher left (12.4%) and right colon (16.4%) ADRs than endoscopists with ADRs <20% (left ADR=5.6%, right ADR=5.8%). Endoscopists with ADRs ≥20% had higher individual right/left ADR ratios than those with low ADRs (1.4 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.4) vs. 1.0 (IQR 0.4), P=0.02). There was a moderate positive correlation between advanced ADR detection and both right (Spearman's rho=0.5, P=0.05) and left colon (Spearman's rho=0.4, P=0.03) ADRs.
CONCLUSIONS: Institutions should consider the use of anatomic and advanced ADRs determined via natural language processing as a refined measure of colonoscopy quality. The ability to continuously monitor and provide feedback on colonoscopy quality metrics may encourage endoscopists to refine technique, resulting in overall improvements in adenoma detection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24935271     DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2014.147

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0002-9270            Impact factor:   10.864


  23 in total

1.  Can Patient Record Summarization Support Quality Metric Abstraction?

Authors:  Rimma Pivovarov; Yael Judith Coppleson; Sharon Lipsky Gorman; David K Vawdrey; Noémie Elhadad
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2017-02-10

2.  Physician report cards and implementing standards of practice are both significantly associated with improved screening colonoscopy quality.

Authors:  Rajesh N Keswani; Rena Yadlapati; Kristine M Gleason; Jody D Ciolino; Michael Manka; Kevin J O'Leary; Cynthia Barnard; John E Pandolfino
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-04-14       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 3.  Clinical Data Reuse or Secondary Use: Current Status and Potential Future Progress.

Authors:  S M Meystre; C Lovis; T Bürkle; G Tognola; A Budrionis; C U Lehmann
Journal:  Yearb Med Inform       Date:  2017-09-11

Review 4.  Aspiring to Unintended Consequences of Natural Language Processing: A Review of Recent Developments in Clinical and Consumer-Generated Text Processing.

Authors:  D Demner-Fushman; N Elhadad
Journal:  Yearb Med Inform       Date:  2016-11-10

5.  Identifying Falls Risk Screenings Not Documented with Administrative Codes Using Natural Language Processing.

Authors:  Vivienne J Zhu; Tina D Walker; Robert W Warren; Peggy B Jenny; Stephane Meystre; Leslie A Lenert
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2018-04-16

6.  Feasibility of Large-Scale Identification of Sessile Serrated Polyp Patients Using Electronic Records: A Utah Study.

Authors:  Kajsa Affolter; Keith Gligorich; Niloy Jewel Samadder; Wade S Samowitz; Karen Curtin
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2017-03-17       Impact factor: 3.199

7.  PheKB: a catalog and workflow for creating electronic phenotype algorithms for transportability.

Authors:  Jacqueline C Kirby; Peter Speltz; Luke V Rasmussen; Melissa Basford; Omri Gottesman; Peggy L Peissig; Jennifer A Pacheco; Gerard Tromp; Jyotishman Pathak; David S Carrell; Stephen B Ellis; Todd Lingren; Will K Thompson; Guergana Savova; Jonathan Haines; Dan M Roden; Paul A Harris; Joshua C Denny
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2016-03-28       Impact factor: 4.497

8.  Multi-center colonoscopy quality measurement utilizing natural language processing.

Authors:  Timothy D Imler; Justin Morea; Charles Kahi; Eric A Sherer; Jon Cardwell; Cynthia S Johnson; Huiping Xu; Dennis Ahnen; Fadi Antaki; Christopher Ashley; Gyorgy Baffy; Ilseung Cho; Jason Dominitz; Jason Hou; Mark Korsten; Anil Nagar; Kittichai Promrat; Douglas Robertson; Sameer Saini; Amandeep Shergill; Walter Smalley; Thomas F Imperiale
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-03-10       Impact factor: 10.864

9.  Natural language processing as an alternative to manual reporting of colonoscopy quality metrics.

Authors:  Gottumukkala S Raju; Phillip J Lum; Rebecca S Slack; Selvi Thirumurthi; Patrick M Lynch; Ethan Miller; Brian R Weston; Marta L Davila; Manoop S Bhutani; Mehnaz A Shafi; Robert S Bresalier; Alexander A Dekovich; Jeffrey H Lee; Sushovan Guha; Mala Pande; Boris Blechacz; Asif Rashid; Mark Routbort; Gladis Shuttlesworth; Lopa Mishra; John R Stroehlein; William A Ross
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 10.  A new era of quality measurement in rheumatology: electronic clinical quality measures and national registries.

Authors:  Chris Tonner; Gabriela Schmajuk; Jinoos Yazdany
Journal:  Curr Opin Rheumatol       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 5.006

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.