Literature DB >> 29936469

Objective Comparison Using Guideline-based Query of Conventional Radiological Reports and Structured Reports.

Máté E Maros1, Ralf Wenz2, Alex Förster1, Matthias F Froelich3, Christoph Groden1, Wieland H Sommer3,4, Stefan O Schönberg5, Thomas Henzler5, Holger Wenz6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This feasibility study of text-mining-based scoring algorithm provides an objective comparison of structured reports (SR) and conventional free-text reports (cFTR) by means of guideline-based key terms. Furthermore, an open-source online version of this ranking algorithm was provided with multilingual text-retrieval pipeline, customizable query and real-time-scoring.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients with suspected stroke and magnetic resonance imaging were re-assessed by two independent/blinded readers [inexperienced: 3 years; experienced >6 years/Board-certified). SR and cFTR were compared with guideline-query using the cosine similarity score (CSS) and Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
RESULTS: All pathological findings (18/18) were identified by SR and cFTR. The impressions section of the SRs of the inexperienced reader had the highest median (0.145) and maximal (0.214) CSS and were rated significantly higher (p=2.21×10-5 and p=1.4×10-4, respectively) than cFTR (median=0.102). CSS was robust to variations of query.
CONCLUSION: Objective guideline-based comparison of SRs and cFTRs using the CSS is feasible and provides a scalable quality measure that can facilitate the adoption of structured reports in all fields of radiology. Copyright
© 2018, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Data mining; cosine similarity score; objective comparison; report quality; structured reporting; text mining

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29936469      PMCID: PMC6117779          DOI: 10.21873/invivo.11318

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  In Vivo        ISSN: 0258-851X            Impact factor:   2.155


  17 in total

1.  Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting.

Authors:  Lawrence H Schwartz; David M Panicek; Alexandra R Berk; Yuelin Li; Hedvig Hricak
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-04-25       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Analysis of RadLex coverage and term co-occurrence in radiology reporting templates.

Authors:  Yi Hong; Jin Zhang; Marta E Heilbrun; Charles E Kahn
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  An open-standards grammar for outline-style radiology report templates.

Authors:  Selen Bozkurt; Charles E Kahn
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Application of recently developed computer algorithm for automatic classification of unstructured radiology reports: validation study.

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

5.  Reporting initiative of the Radiological Society of North America: progress and new directions.

Authors:  Tara A Morgan; Marta E Helibrun; Charles E Kahn
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Conversion of Radiology Reporting Templates to the MRRT Standard.

Authors:  Charles E Kahn; Brad Genereaux; Curtis P Langlotz
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 7.  Natural Language Processing in Radiology: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Ewoud Pons; Loes M M Braun; M G Myriam Hunink; Jan A Kors
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Usage of structured reporting in radiological practice: results from an Italian online survey.

Authors:  Lorenzo Faggioni; Francesca Coppola; Riccardo Ferrari; Emanuele Neri; Daniele Regge
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-08-29       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Natural language processing using online analytic processing for assessing recommendations in radiology reports.

Authors:  Pragya A Dang; Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael A Blake; Thomas J Schultz; Markus Stout; Paul R Lemay; David J Freshman; Elkan F Halpern; Keith J Dreyer
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 5.532

10.  Imaging recommendations for acute stroke and transient ischemic attack patients: a joint statement by the American Society of Neuroradiology, the American College of Radiology and the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

Authors:  Max Wintermark; Pina C Sanelli; Gregory W Albers; Jacqueline A Bello; Colin P Derdeyn; Steven W Hetts; Michele H Johnson; Chelsea S Kidwell; Michael H Lev; David S Liebeskind; Howard A Rowley; Pamela W Schaefer; Jeffrey L Sunshine; Greg Zaharchuk; Carolyn C Meltzer
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2013-08-13       Impact factor: 5.532

View more
  3 in total

1.  Viewing Imaging Studies: How Patient Location and Imaging Site Affect Referring Physicians.

Authors:  Fatemeh Homayounieh; Ramandeep Singh; Tianqi Chen; Ellen J Sugarman; Thomas J Schultz; Subba R Digumarthy; Keith J Dreyer; Mannudeep K Kalra
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  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

3.  Correlations Between the Expression of Stromal Cell Activation Related Biomarkers, L-NGFR, Phospho-ERK1-2 and CXCL12, and Primary Myelofibrosis Progression.

Authors:  Tamas Szekely; Tibor Krenacs; Mate Elod Maros; Csaba Bodor; Viktoria Daubner; Annamaria Csizmadia; Brigitta Vrabely; Botond Timar
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2022-03-14       Impact factor: 3.201

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.