Literature DB >> 27844217

Assessing Inaccuracies in Automated Information Extraction of Breast Imaging Findings.

Ronilda Lacson1,2, Martha E Goodrich3, Kimberly Harris4, Phyllis Brawarsky4, Jennifer S Haas5,4.   

Abstract

We previously identified breast imaging findings from radiology reports using an expert-based information extraction algorithm as part of the National Cancer Institute's Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) initiative. We validate this algorithm and assess inaccuracies in a different institutional setting. Mammography, ultrasound (US), and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports of patients at an academic health system between 4/2013 and 6/2013 were included for analysis. Accuracy of automatically extracting imaging findings using an algorithm developed at a different institution compared to manual gold standard review is reported. Extraction errors are further categorized based on manual review. Precision and recall for extracting BI-RADS categories remain between 0.9 and 1.0, except for MRI (0.7). F measures for extracting other findings are 0.9 for non-mass enhancement (in MRI) and 0.8-0.9 for cysts (in MRI and US). Extracting breast imaging findings resulted in lowest accuracy for findings of calcification (range 0.4-0.6 in mammography) and asymmetric density (0.5-0.7 in mammography). Majority of errors for extracting imaging findings were due to qualifier-based errors, descriptors which indicate absence of findings, missed by automated extraction (e.g., "benign" calcifications). Our information extraction algorithm provides an effective approach to extracting some breast imaging findings for populating a breast screening registry. However, errors in information extraction when utilizing methods in new settings demonstrate that further work is necessary to extract information content from unstructured multi-institutional radiology reports.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast neoplasm; Information storage and retrieval; Magnetic resonance imaging; Mammography; Radiology reporting; Ultrasonography

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27844217      PMCID: PMC5359211          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-016-9927-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  24 in total

1.  Automatic structuring of radiology free-text reports.

Authors:  R K Taira; S G Soderland; R M Jakobovits
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2001 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.333

2.  Effective mapping of biomedical text to the UMLS Metathesaurus: the MetaMap program.

Authors:  A R Aronson
Journal:  Proc AMIA Symp       Date:  2001

3.  Quality mammography standards--FDA. Final rule.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  1997-10-28

4.  Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection.

Authors:  R L Birdwell; D M Ikeda; K F O'Shaughnessy; E A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Leveraging terminologies for retrieval of radiology reports with critical imaging findings.

Authors:  Graham I Warden; Ronilda Lacson; Ramin Khorasani
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2011-10-22

6.  Information from Searching Content with an Ontology-Utilizing Toolkit (iSCOUT).

Authors:  Ronilda Lacson; Katherine P Andriole; Luciano M Prevedello; Ramin Khorasani
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 4.056

7.  Evaluation of biomedical text-mining systems: lessons learned from information retrieval.

Authors:  William Hersh
Journal:  Brief Bioinform       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 11.622

8.  Automatic extraction of PIOPED interpretations from ventilation/perfusion lung scan reports.

Authors:  M Fiszman; P J Haug; P R Frederick
Journal:  Proc AMIA Symp       Date:  1998

Review 9.  Role and evaluation of mammography and other imaging methods for breast cancer detection, diagnosis, and staging.

Authors:  S A Feig
Journal:  Semin Nucl Med       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 4.446

10.  Young age at diagnosis correlates with worse prognosis and defines a subset of breast cancers with shared patterns of gene expression.

Authors:  Carey K Anders; David S Hsu; Gloria Broadwater; Chaitanya R Acharya; John A Foekens; Yi Zhang; Yixin Wang; P Kelly Marcom; Jeffrey R Marks; Phillip G Febbo; Joseph R Nevins; Anil Potti; Kimberly L Blackwell
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-07-10       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  2 in total

1.  A systematic review of natural language processing applied to radiology reports.

Authors:  Arlene Casey; Emma Davidson; Michael Poon; Hang Dong; Daniel Duma; Andreas Grivas; Claire Grover; Víctor Suárez-Paniagua; Richard Tobin; William Whiteley; Honghan Wu; Beatrice Alex
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2021-06-03       Impact factor: 2.796

2.  Evaluation of a new method of calculating breast tumor volume based on automated breast ultrasound.

Authors:  Jing-Jing Ma; Shan Meng; Sha-Jie Dang; Jia-Zhong Wang; Quan Yuan; Qi Yang; Can-Xu Song
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-09-13       Impact factor: 5.738

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.