↓ Skip to main content

Automatic Determination of the Need for Intravenous Contrast in Musculoskeletal MRI Examinations Using IBM Watson’s Natural Language Processing Algorithm

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#35 of 1,061)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Automatic Determination of the Need for Intravenous Contrast in Musculoskeletal MRI Examinations Using IBM Watson’s Natural Language Processing Algorithm
Published in
Journal of Digital Imaging, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10278-017-0021-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hari Trivedi, Joseph Mesterhazy, Benjamin Laguna, Thienkhai Vu, Jae Ho Sohn

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocoling can be time- and resource-intensive, and protocols can often be suboptimal dependent upon the expertise or preferences of the protocoling radiologist. Providing a best-practice recommendation for an MRI protocol has the potential to improve efficiency and decrease the likelihood of a suboptimal or erroneous study. The goal of this study was to develop and validate a machine learning-based natural language classifier that can automatically assign the use of intravenous contrast for musculoskeletal MRI protocols based upon the free-text clinical indication of the study, thereby improving efficiency of the protocoling radiologist and potentially decreasing errors. We utilized a deep learning-based natural language classification system from IBM Watson, a question-answering supercomputer that gained fame after challenging the best human players on Jeopardy! in 2011. We compared this solution to a series of traditional machine learning-based natural language processing techniques that utilize a term-document frequency matrix. Each classifier was trained with 1240 MRI protocols plus their respective clinical indications and validated with a test set of 280. Ground truth of contrast assignment was obtained from the clinical record. For evaluation of inter-reader agreement, a blinded second reader radiologist analyzed all cases and determined contrast assignment based on only the free-text clinical indication. In the test set, Watson demonstrated overall accuracy of 83.2% when compared to the original protocol. This was similar to the overall accuracy of 80.2% achieved by an ensemble of eight traditional machine learning algorithms based on a term-document matrix. When compared to the second reader's contrast assignment, Watson achieved 88.6% agreement. When evaluating only the subset of cases where the original protocol and second reader were concordant (n = 251), agreement climbed further to 90.0%. The classifier was relatively robust to spelling and grammatical errors, which were frequent. Implementation of this automated MR contrast determination system as a clinical decision support tool may save considerable time and effort of the radiologist while potentially decreasing error rates, and require no change in order entry or workflow.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 114 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 14%
Student > Master 14 12%
Researcher 8 7%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Other 23 20%
Unknown 29 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 27%
Computer Science 12 11%
Engineering 7 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 39 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 23 August 2019.
All research outputs
#1,788,067
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#35
of 1,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,248
of 318,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#2
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,061 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 318,316 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.