↓ Skip to main content

Automated Radiology Report Summarization Using an Open-Source Natural Language Processing Pipeline

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Digital Imaging, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
patent
3 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Automated Radiology Report Summarization Using an Open-Source Natural Language Processing Pipeline
Published in
Journal of Digital Imaging, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10278-017-0030-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel J. Goff, Thomas W. Loehfelm

Abstract

Diagnostic radiologists are expected to review and assimilate findings from prior studies when constructing their overall assessment of the current study. Radiology information systems facilitate this process by presenting the radiologist with a subset of prior studies that are more likely to be relevant to the current study, usually by comparing anatomic coverage of both the current and prior studies. It is incumbent on the radiologist to review the full text report and/or images from those prior studies, a process that is time-consuming and confers substantial risk of overlooking a relevant prior study or finding. This risk is compounded when patients have dozens or even hundreds of prior imaging studies. Our goal is to assess the feasibility of natural language processing techniques to automatically extract asserted and negated disease entities from free-text radiology reports as a step towards automated report summarization. We compared automatically extracted disease mentions to a gold-standard set of manual annotations for 50 radiology reports from CT abdomen and pelvis examinations. The automated report summarization pipeline found perfect or overlapping partial matches for 86% of the manually annotated disease mentions (sensitivity 0.86, precision 0.66, accuracy 0.59, F1 score 0.74). The performance of the automated pipeline was good, and the overall accuracy was similar to the interobserver agreement between the two manual annotators.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 20%
Other 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 18 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 25%
Computer Science 15 23%
Engineering 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Chemistry 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 20 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 March 2024.
All research outputs
#5,246,381
of 25,503,365 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#171
of 1,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,446
of 340,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#7
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,503,365 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,111 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,065 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.