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

Abstract

Abstract. Background: This feasibility study of text-miningbased scoring algorithm provides an objective comparison of structured reports (SR) and conventional free-text reports (cFTR) by means of guidelineStructured reporting (SR) represents a new direction in communicating radiological reports to clinicians in a way that is clear and uniform (1). However, follow-up studies on SR have shown mixed results regarding adaptation and adherence (2-4). In particular, neuroradiological residents most commonly complain that SRs are overly constraining and time-consuming (5). In spite of that, there is an increasing tendency to use online solutions to generate SR templates (6). For instance, "CT brain" and "MR brain" were the third and fifth most frequently viewed SR templates in the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) online library (7). SR templates can serve as core frameworks, but because of heterogeneous representations of diseases and co-morbidities, there is a substantial need to allow for customization of each report -primarily in the form of additional free text. Consequently, the distinction between conventional free-text (narrative) reports (cFTR) and SR becomes even more blurred, which makes their objective comparison even harder. This raises two further questions: Are SRs indeed 'better' than cFTRs? How can cFTRs be compared with SRs in an objective, fast and scalable way if SRs are often a mixture of structured and free (narrative) text?Firstly, there is a need to define how to objectively quantify 'better'. Commonly the method of choice for such quality assessments is either an expert opinion-based rating (5, 8) or a survey-based evaluation by physicians (4). Although both methods provide valuable insight, they are very laborious and time-consuming for experts and do not scale well for large datasets (4,8). Therefore, we aimed to implement an approach using the adherence to imaging and clinical guidelines as a quality measure.Secondly, in order to objectively compare cFTR with SR, we suggest an evaluation based on widely used text-mining technique using the 'bag of words' representation and cosine similarity (9, 10). The cosine similarity provides the core of many information retrieval systems (11,12). Reports can be 843 This article is freely accessible online.

Comparative analysis of machine learning algorithms for computer-assisted reporting based on fully automated cross-lingual RadLex mappings

“…We used a commercially available NLP pipeline that implements a common approach 8,51 comprised of cleansing, contextualization and concept recognition as well as negation detection trained explicitly for German and English RadLex mappings 1,43 . This fully automated approach to generate bag-of-RadLex mappings is advantageous compared to standard BOW 35 approaches, as it already captures domain-specific knowledge including negation and affirmation 3 . Mikolov et al proposed word2vec to create semantic word embeddings, which gained popularity in the field of radiology 5,55 .…”

“…No further pre-processing steps of the text were done. Our RadLex annotation and scoring pipeline (RASP), which utilizes the aforementioned HAS API, is freely available as a Shiny application at https ://mmatt .shiny apps.io/rasp/ 35 . We used RASP to generate the document (i.e.…”

“…In the DTM, each report is represented as a vector (i.e. bag-of-)RadLex terms that occurred in the corpus 34 , 35 . All hierarchical parent and child categories of the identified RadLex terms were included as features and encoded in a binary fashion (0|1), whether the term was present or not.…”

Influence of structured reporting of tooth-colored indirect restorations on clinical decision-making

“…It is therefore no surprise that dentists and patients spend the majority of their time (more than 60%) with the application, restoration and replacement of restorations [4]. The literature makes clear that as early as the diagnostic process occures, a structured approach can allow a more complete technical and clinical assessment, and thus be a solution to the problems described [5][6][7][8][9][10]. In the conventional approach (gold standard), parameters such as border seal, proximal contact strength, shape, surface smoothness and accuracy of fi t (by means of an inside impression) are assessed [11].…”

“…In addition, structured reporting with its clear sequence facilitates the clinical fi ndings themselves. A number of concepts are subsumed under the term structured reporting, including the implementation of checklists and criteria [5,6]. In 2010, the World Dental Federation (FDI) revised the clinical criteria for the assessment of direct (fi llings) and indirect (inlays, crowns) dental restorations and provided, amongst other things, the decision-making.…”