M Sevenster1, J Buurman2, P Liu3, J F Peters4, P J Chang3. 1. Philips Research, Briarcliff Manor , NY, United States. 2. Philips Research , Eindhoven, Netherlands. 3. University of Chicago Hospitals , Chicago, IL, United States. 4. Philips Healthcare , Best, Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accumulating quantitative outcome parameters may contribute to constructing a healthcare organization in which outcomes of clinical procedures are reproducible and predictable. In imaging studies, measurements are the principal category of quantitative para meters. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this work is to develop and evaluate two natural language processing engines that extract finding and organ measurements from narrative radiology reports and to categorize extracted measurements by their "temporality". METHODS: The measurement extraction engine is developed as a set of regular expressions. The engine was evaluated against a manually created ground truth. Automated categorization of measurement temporality is defined as a machine learning problem. A ground truth was manually developed based on a corpus of radiology reports. A maximum entropy model was created using features that characterize the measurement itself and its narrative context. The model was evaluated in a ten-fold cross validation protocol. RESULTS: The measurement extraction engine has precision 0.994 and recall 0.991. Accuracy of the measurement classification engine is 0.960. CONCLUSIONS: The work contributes to machine understanding of radiology reports and may find application in software applications that process medical data.
BACKGROUND: Accumulating quantitative outcome parameters may contribute to constructing a healthcare organization in which outcomes of clinical procedures are reproducible and predictable. In imaging studies, measurements are the principal category of quantitative para meters. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this work is to develop and evaluate two natural language processing engines that extract finding and organ measurements from narrative radiology reports and to categorize extracted measurements by their "temporality". METHODS: The measurement extraction engine is developed as a set of regular expressions. The engine was evaluated against a manually created ground truth. Automated categorization of measurement temporality is defined as a machine learning problem. A ground truth was manually developed based on a corpus of radiology reports. A maximum entropy model was created using features that characterize the measurement itself and its narrative context. The model was evaluated in a ten-fold cross validation protocol. RESULTS: The measurement extraction engine has precision 0.994 and recall 0.991. Accuracy of the measurement classification engine is 0.960. CONCLUSIONS: The work contributes to machine understanding of radiology reports and may find application in software applications that process medical data.
Keywords:
Natural language processing; maximum entropy; measurement; quantitative imaging; radiology report
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Keith J Dreyer; Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael M Maher; Autumn M Hurier; Benjamin A Asfaw; Thomas Schultz; Elkan F Halpern; James H Thrall Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-12-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Peter L Elkin; David Froehling; Dietlind Wahner-Roedler; Brett Trusko; Gail Welsh; Haobo Ma; Armen X Asatryan; Jerome I Tokars; S Trent Rosenbloom; Steven H Brown Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2008-11-06
Authors: Elizabeth S Chen; George Hripcsak; Hua Xu; Marianthi Markatou; Carol Friedman Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2007-10-18 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Christian M Rochefort; Aman D Verma; Tewodros Eguale; Todd C Lee; David L Buckeridge Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2014-10-20 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Margaret Mahan; Daniel Rafter; Hannah Casey; Marta Engelking; Tessneem Abdallah; Charles Truwit; Mark Oswood; Uzma Samadani Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Garry Choy; Omid Khalilzadeh; Mark Michalski; Synho Do; Anthony E Samir; Oleg S Pianykh; J Raymond Geis; Pari V Pandharipande; James A Brink; Keith J Dreyer Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Robert W Grundmeier; Aaron J Masino; T Charles Casper; Jonathan M Dean; Jamie Bell; Rene Enriquez; Sara Deakyne; James M Chamberlain; Elizabeth R Alpern Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2016-11-09 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Nikhil Goyal; Andrea B Apolo; Eliana D Berman; Mohammad Hadi Bagheri; Jason E Levine; John W Glod; Rosandra N Kaplan; Laura B Machado; Les R Folio Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Rikiya Yamashita; Kristen Bird; Philip Yue-Cheng Cheung; Johannes Hugo Decker; Marta Nicole Flory; Daniel Goff; Linda Nayeli Morimoto; Andy Shon; Andrew Louis Wentland; Daniel L Rubin; Terry S Desser Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2021-12-22
Authors: Manan Shah; Derek Shu; V B Surya Prasath; Yizhao Ni; Andrew H Schapiro; Kevin R Dufendach Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2021-09-08 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Sebastian E Beyer; Brady J McKee; Shawn M Regis; Andrea B McKee; Sebastian Flacke; Gilan El Saadawi; Christoph Wald Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 2.895