3.8 Article

Development and multicenter validation of chest X-ray radiography interpretations based on natural language processing

Journal

COMMUNICATIONS MEDICINE
Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s43856-021-00043-x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81971612, 81471662, 82001809]
  2. Science and Technology Development Fund of Pudong New District [PKX2019-R02]
  3. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2016YFE0103000]
  4. Shanghai Municipal Education Commission-Gaofeng Clinical Medicine Grant Support [20181814]
  5. Shanghai Jiao Tong University [ZH2018ZDB10]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study utilizes natural language processing to extract CXR labels from diagnostic reports, trains CNN models, and evaluates their classification performance using CXR data from multiple centers. The results show that the CNN models perform similarly to local radiologists in identifying abnormal signs on chest X-rays, suggesting that AI can help speed up interpretation of radiology reports.
BackgroundArtificial intelligence can assist in interpreting chest X-ray radiography (CXR) data, but large datasets require efficient image annotation. The purpose of this study is to extract CXR labels from diagnostic reports based on natural language processing, train convolutional neural networks (CNNs), and evaluate the classification performance of CNN using CXR data from multiple centersMethodsWe collected the CXR images and corresponding radiology reports of 74,082 subjects as the training dataset. The linguistic entities and relationships from unstructured radiology reports were extracted by the bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) model, and a knowledge graph was constructed to represent the association between image labels of abnormal signs and the report text of CXR. Then, a 25-label classification system were built to train and test the CNN models with weakly supervised labeling.ResultsIn three external test cohorts of 5,996 symptomatic patients, 2,130 screening examinees, and 1,804 community clinic patients, the mean AUC of identifying 25 abnormal signs by CNN reaches 0.866 +/- 0.110, 0.891 +/- 0.147, and 0.796 +/- 0.157, respectively. In symptomatic patients, CNN shows no significant difference with local radiologists in identifying 21 signs (p > 0.05), but is poorer for 4 signs (p < 0.05). In screening examinees, CNN shows no significant difference for 17 signs (p > 0.05), but is poorer at classifying nodules (p = 0.013). In community clinic patients, CNN shows no significant difference for 12 signs (p > 0.05), but performs better for 6 signs (p < 0.001).ConclusionWe construct and validate an effective CXR interpretation system based on natural language processing. Plain language summaryChest X-rays are accompanied by a report from the radiologist, which contains valuable diagnostic information in text format. Extracting and interpreting information from these reports, such as keywords, is time-consuming, but artificial intelligence (AI) can help with this. Here, we use a type of AI known as natural language processing to extract information about abnormal signs seen on chest X-rays from the corresponding report. We develop and test natural language processing models using data from multiple hospitals and clinics, and show that our models achieve similar performance to interpretation from the radiologists themselves. Our findings suggest that AI might help radiologists to speed up interpretation of chest X-ray reports, which could be useful not only in patient triage and diagnosis but also cataloguing and searching of radiology datasets. Zhang et al. develop a natural language processing approach, based on the BERT model, to extract linguistic information from chest X-ray radiography reports. The authors establish a 25-label classification system for abnormal findings described in the reports and validate their model using data from multiple sites.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available