Literature DB >> 35166969

Machine vs. Radiologist-Based Translations of RadLex: Implications for Multi-language Report Interoperability.

Christian J Park1, Paul H Yi2, Hussain Al Yousif3, Kenneth C Wang4.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of translation of RadLex lexicon from English to German performed by Google Translate, using the RadLex ontology as ground truth. The same comparison was also performed for German to English translations. We determined the concordance rate of the Google Translate-rendered translations (for both English to German and German to English translations) to the official German RadLex (translations provided by the German Radiological Society) and English RadLex terms via character-by-character concordance analysis (string matching). Specific term characteristics of term character count and word count were compared between concordant and discordant translations using t-tests. Google Translate-rendered translations originally considered incongruent (2482 English terms and 2500 German terms) were then reviewed by German and English-speaking radiologists to further evaluate clinical utility. Overall success rates of both methods were calculated by adding the percentage of terms marked correct by string comparison to the percentage marked correct during manual review extrapolated to the terms that had been initially marked incorrect during string analysis. 64,632 English and 47,425 German RadLex terms were analyzed. 3507 (5.4%) of the Google Translate-rendered English to German translations were concordant with the official German RadLex terms when evaluated via character-by-character concordance. 3288 (6.9%) of the Google Translate-rendered German to English translations matched the corresponding English RadLex terms. Human review of a random sample of non-concordant machine translations revealed that 95.5% of such English to German translations were understandable, whereas 43.9% of such German to English translations were understandable. Combining both string matching and human review resulted in an overall Google Translate success rate of 95.7% for English to German translations and 47.8% for German to English translations. For certain radiologic text translation tasks, Google Translate may be a useful tool for translating multi-language radiology reports into a common language for natural language processing and subsequent labeling of datasets for machine learning. Indeed, string matching analysis alone is an incomplete method for evaluating machine translation. However, when human review of automated translation is also incorporated, measured performance improves. Additional evaluation using longer text samples and full imaging reports is needed. An apparent discordance between English to German versus German to English translation suggests that the direction of translation affects accuracy.
© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Informatics; Natural language processing; RadLex; Reports; Translation

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35166969      PMCID: PMC9156647          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-022-00597-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.903


  10 in total

Review 1.  Natural Language Processing Technologies in Radiology Research and Clinical Applications.

Authors:  Tianrun Cai; Andreas A Giannopoulos; Sheng Yu; Tatiana Kelil; Beth Ripley; Kanako K Kumamaru; Frank J Rybicki; Dimitrios Mitsouras
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.333

2.  Medical writing in English: The problem with Google Translate.

Authors:  Frances Sheppard
Journal:  Presse Med       Date:  2011-04-22       Impact factor: 1.228

3.  Healthcare uses of artificial intelligence: Challenges and opportunities for growth.

Authors:  Eric Racine; Wren Boehlen; Matthew Sample
Journal:  Healthc Manage Forum       Date:  2019-06-24

4.  Assessing the Use of Google Translate for Spanish and Chinese Translations of Emergency Department Discharge Instructions.

Authors:  Elaine C Khoong; Eric Steinbrook; Cortlyn Brown; Alicia Fernandez
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 21.873

5.  Big data in healthcare - the promises, challenges and opportunities from a research perspective: A case study with a model database.

Authors:  Mohammad Adibuzzaman; Poching DeLaurentis; Jennifer Hill; Brian D Benneyworth
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2018-04-16

6.  The inevitable application of big data to health care.

Authors:  Travis B Murdoch; Allan S Detsky
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2013-04-03       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 7.  Artificial intelligence in radiology.

Authors:  Ahmed Hosny; Chintan Parmar; John Quackenbush; Lawrence H Schwartz; Hugo J W L Aerts
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 60.716

8.  Fine-Tuning Bidirectional Encoder Representations From Transformers (BERT)-Based Models on Large-Scale Electronic Health Record Notes: An Empirical Study.

Authors:  Fei Li; Yonghao Jin; Weisong Liu; Bhanu Pratap Singh Rawat; Pengshan Cai; Hong Yu
Journal:  JMIR Med Inform       Date:  2019-09-12

9.  Evaluating the Accuracy of Google Translate for Diabetes Education Material.

Authors:  Xuewei Chen; Sandra Acosta; Adam Etheridge Barry
Journal:  JMIR Diabetes       Date:  2016-06-28

10.  A Pragmatic Assessment of Google Translate for Emergency Department Instructions.

Authors:  Breena R Taira; Vanessa Kreger; Aristides Orue; Lisa C Diamond
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 5.128

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.