Literature DB >> 36204531

Deep Learning-based Assessment of Oncologic Outcomes from Natural Language Processing of Structured Radiology Reports.

Matthias A Fink1, Klaus Kades1, Arved Bischoff1, Martin Moll1, Merle Schnell1, Maike Küchler1, Gregor Köhler1, Jan Sellner1, Claus Peter Heussel1, Hans-Ulrich Kauczor1, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer1, Klaus Maier-Hein1, Tim F Weber1, Jens Kleesiek1.   

Abstract

Purpose: To train a deep natural language processing (NLP) model, using data mined structured oncology reports (SOR), for rapid tumor response category (TRC) classification from free-text oncology reports (FTOR) and to compare its performance with human readers and conventional NLP algorithms. Materials and
Methods: In this retrospective study, databases of three independent radiology departments were queried for SOR and FTOR dated from March 2018 to August 2021. An automated data mining and curation pipeline was developed to extract Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors-related TRCs for SOR for ground truth definition. The deep NLP bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) model and three feature-rich algorithms were trained on SOR to predict TRCs in FTOR. Models' F1 scores were compared against scores of radiologists, medical students, and radiology technologist students. Lexical and semantic analyses were conducted to investigate human and model performance on FTOR.
Results: Oncologic findings and TRCs were accurately mined from 9653 of 12 833 (75.2%) queried SOR, yielding oncology reports from 10 455 patients (mean age, 60 years ± 14 [SD]; 5303 women) who met inclusion criteria. On 802 FTOR in the test set, BERT achieved better TRC classification results (F1, 0.70; 95% CI: 0.68, 0.73) than the best-performing reference linear support vector classifier (F1, 0.63; 95% CI: 0.61, 0.66) and technologist students (F1, 0.65; 95% CI: 0.63, 0.67), had similar performance to medical students (F1, 0.73; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.75), but was inferior to radiologists (F1, 0.79; 95% CI: 0.78, 0.81). Lexical complexity and semantic ambiguities in FTOR influenced human and model performance, revealing maximum F1 score drops of -0.17 and -0.19, respectively.
Conclusion: The developed deep NLP model reached the performance level of medical students but not radiologists in curating oncologic outcomes from radiology FTOR.Keywords: Neural Networks, Computer Applications-Detection/Diagnosis, Oncology, Research Design, Staging, Tumor Response, Comparative Studies, Decision Analysis, Experimental Investigations, Observer Performance, Outcomes Analysis Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2022.
© 2022 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Comparative Studies; Computer Applications–Detection/Diagnosis; Decision Analysis; Experimental Investigations; Neural Networks; Observer Performance; Oncology; Outcomes Analysis; Research Design; Staging; Tumor Response

Year:  2022        PMID: 36204531      PMCID: PMC9530771          DOI: 10.1148/ryai.220055

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Artif Intell        ISSN: 2638-6100


  19 in total

1.  The radiology report as seen by radiologists and referring clinicians: results of the COVER and ROVER surveys.

Authors:  Jan M L Bosmans; Joost J Weyler; Arthur M De Schepper; Paul M Parizel
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-01-11       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research.

Authors:  Terry K Koo; Mae Y Li
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2016-03-31

Review 3.  Use of Natural Language Processing to Extract Clinical Cancer Phenotypes from Electronic Medical Records.

Authors:  Guergana K Savova; Ioana Danciu; Folami Alamudun; Timothy Miller; Chen Lin; Danielle S Bitterman; Georgia Tourassi; Jeremy L Warner
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2019-08-08       Impact factor: 12.701

4.  New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

Authors:  E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 9.162

5.  Assessment of Deep Natural Language Processing in Ascertaining Oncologic Outcomes From Radiology Reports.

Authors:  Kenneth L Kehl; Haitham Elmarakeby; Mizuki Nishino; Eliezer M Van Allen; Eva M Lepisto; Michael J Hassett; Bruce E Johnson; Deborah Schrag
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 31.777

Review 6.  ESR paper on structured reporting in radiology.

Authors: 
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2018-02-19

7.  Comparing deep learning and concept extraction based methods for patient phenotyping from clinical narratives.

Authors:  Sebastian Gehrmann; Franck Dernoncourt; Yeran Li; Eric T Carlson; Joy T Wu; Jonathan Welt; John Foote; Edward T Moseley; David W Grant; Patrick D Tyler; Leo A Celi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-02-15       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Redefining the structure of structured reporting in radiology.

Authors:  J Martijn Nobel; Ellen M Kok; Simon G F Robben
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2020-02-04

9.  Preparing Medical Imaging Data for Machine Learning.

Authors:  Martin J Willemink; Wojciech A Koszek; Cailin Hardell; Jie Wu; Dominik Fleischmann; Hugh Harvey; Les R Folio; Ronald M Summers; Daniel L Rubin; Matthew P Lungren
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-02-18       Impact factor: 11.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.