Amir Gandomi , Eusha Hasan , Jesse Chusid , Subroto Paul , Matthew Inra , Alex Makhnevich , Suhail Raoof , Gerard Silvestri , Brett C. Bade , Stuart L. Cohen
{"title":"Evaluating the accuracy of lung-RADS score extraction from radiology reports: Manual entry versus natural language processing","authors":"Amir Gandomi , Eusha Hasan , Jesse Chusid , Subroto Paul , Matthew Inra , Alex Makhnevich , Suhail Raoof , Gerard Silvestri , Brett C. Bade , Stuart L. Cohen","doi":"10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105580","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Radiology scoring systems are critical to the success of lung cancer screening (LCS) programs, impacting patient care, adherence to follow-up, data management and reporting, and program evaluation. Lung<!--> <!-->CT Screening<!--> <!-->Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) is a structured radiology scoring system that provides recommendations for LCS follow-up that are utilized (a) in clinical care and (b) by LCS programs monitoring rates of adherence to follow-up. Thus, accurate reporting and reliable collection of Lung-RADS scores are fundamental components of LCS program evaluation and improvement. Unfortunately, due to variability in radiology reports, extraction of Lung-RADS scores is non-trivial, and best practices do not exist. The purpose of this project is to compare mechanisms to extract Lung-RADS scores from free-text radiology reports.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We retrospectively analyzed reports of LCS low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) examinations performed at a multihospital integrated healthcare network in New York State between January 2016 and July 2023. We compared three methods of Lung-RADS score extraction: manual physician entry at time of report creation, manual LCS specialist entry after report creation, and an internally developed, rule-based natural language processing (NLP) algorithm. Accuracy, recall, precision, and completeness (i.e., the proportion of LCS exams to which a Lung-RADS score has been assigned) were compared between the three methods.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The dataset includes 24,060 LCS examinations on 14,243 unique patients. The mean patient age was 65 years, and most patients were male (54 %) and white (75 %). Completeness rate was 65 %, 68 %, and 99 % for radiologists’ manual entry, LCS specialists’ entry, and NLP algorithm, respectively. Accuracy, recall, and precision were high across all extraction methods (>94 %), though the NLP-based approach was consistently higher than both manual entries in all metrics.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>An NLP-based method of LCS score determination is an efficient and more accurate means of extracting Lung-RADS scores than manual review and data entry. NLP-based methods should be considered best practice for extracting structured Lung-RADS scores from free-text radiology reports.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54950,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Medical Informatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Medical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386505624002430","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
Radiology scoring systems are critical to the success of lung cancer screening (LCS) programs, impacting patient care, adherence to follow-up, data management and reporting, and program evaluation. Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) is a structured radiology scoring system that provides recommendations for LCS follow-up that are utilized (a) in clinical care and (b) by LCS programs monitoring rates of adherence to follow-up. Thus, accurate reporting and reliable collection of Lung-RADS scores are fundamental components of LCS program evaluation and improvement. Unfortunately, due to variability in radiology reports, extraction of Lung-RADS scores is non-trivial, and best practices do not exist. The purpose of this project is to compare mechanisms to extract Lung-RADS scores from free-text radiology reports.
Methods
We retrospectively analyzed reports of LCS low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) examinations performed at a multihospital integrated healthcare network in New York State between January 2016 and July 2023. We compared three methods of Lung-RADS score extraction: manual physician entry at time of report creation, manual LCS specialist entry after report creation, and an internally developed, rule-based natural language processing (NLP) algorithm. Accuracy, recall, precision, and completeness (i.e., the proportion of LCS exams to which a Lung-RADS score has been assigned) were compared between the three methods.
Results
The dataset includes 24,060 LCS examinations on 14,243 unique patients. The mean patient age was 65 years, and most patients were male (54 %) and white (75 %). Completeness rate was 65 %, 68 %, and 99 % for radiologists’ manual entry, LCS specialists’ entry, and NLP algorithm, respectively. Accuracy, recall, and precision were high across all extraction methods (>94 %), though the NLP-based approach was consistently higher than both manual entries in all metrics.
Discussion
An NLP-based method of LCS score determination is an efficient and more accurate means of extracting Lung-RADS scores than manual review and data entry. NLP-based methods should be considered best practice for extracting structured Lung-RADS scores from free-text radiology reports.
期刊介绍:
International Journal of Medical Informatics provides an international medium for dissemination of original results and interpretative reviews concerning the field of medical informatics. The Journal emphasizes the evaluation of systems in healthcare settings.
The scope of journal covers:
Information systems, including national or international registration systems, hospital information systems, departmental and/or physician''s office systems, document handling systems, electronic medical record systems, standardization, systems integration etc.;
Computer-aided medical decision support systems using heuristic, algorithmic and/or statistical methods as exemplified in decision theory, protocol development, artificial intelligence, etc.
Educational computer based programs pertaining to medical informatics or medicine in general;
Organizational, economic, social, clinical impact, ethical and cost-benefit aspects of IT applications in health care.