北曼哈顿中风研究的编码神经放射学报告:自然语言处理和人工审查的比较

Jacob S. Elkins , Carol Friedman , Bernadette Boden-Albala , Ralph L. Sacco , George Hripcsak
{"title":"北曼哈顿中风研究的编码神经放射学报告:自然语言处理和人工审查的比较","authors":"Jacob S. Elkins ,&nbsp;Carol Friedman ,&nbsp;Bernadette Boden-Albala ,&nbsp;Ralph L. Sacco ,&nbsp;George Hripcsak","doi":"10.1006/cbmr.1999.1535","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Automated systems using natural language processing may greatly speed chart review tasks for clinical research, but their accuracy in this setting is unknown. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of automated and manual coding in the data acquisition tasks of an ongoing clinical research study, the Northern Manhattan Stroke Study(NOMASS). We identified 471 neuroradiology reports of brain images used in the NOMASS study. Using both automated and manual coding, we completed a standardized NOMASS imaging form with the information contained in these reports. We then generated ROC curves for both manual and automated coding by comparing our results to the original NOMASS data, where study in investigators directly coded their interpretations of brain images. The areas under the ROC curves for both manual and automated coding were the main outcome measure. The overall predictive value of the automated system (ROC area 0.85, 95% CI 0.84–0.87) was not statistically different from the predictive value of the manual coding (ROC area 0.87, 95% CI 0.83–0.91). Measured in terms of accuracy, the automated system performed slightly worse than manual coding. The overall accuracy of the automated system was 84% (CI 83–85%). The overall accuracy of manual coding was 86% (CI 84–88%). The difference in accuracy between the two methods was small but statistically significant (<em>P</em> = 0.026). Errors in manual coding appeared to be due to differences between neurologists' and nueroradiologists' interpretation, different use of detailed anatomic terms, and lack of clinical information. Automated systems can use natural language processing to rapidly perform complex data acquisition tasks. Although there is a small decrease in the accuracy of the data as compared to traditional methods, automated systems may greatly expand the power of chart review in clinical research design and implementation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":75733,"journal":{"name":"Computers and biomedical research, an international journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1006/cbmr.1999.1535","citationCount":"52","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Coding Neuroradiology Reports for the Northern Manhattan Stroke Study: A Comparison of Natural Language Processing and Manual Review\",\"authors\":\"Jacob S. Elkins ,&nbsp;Carol Friedman ,&nbsp;Bernadette Boden-Albala ,&nbsp;Ralph L. Sacco ,&nbsp;George Hripcsak\",\"doi\":\"10.1006/cbmr.1999.1535\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Automated systems using natural language processing may greatly speed chart review tasks for clinical research, but their accuracy in this setting is unknown. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of automated and manual coding in the data acquisition tasks of an ongoing clinical research study, the Northern Manhattan Stroke Study(NOMASS). We identified 471 neuroradiology reports of brain images used in the NOMASS study. Using both automated and manual coding, we completed a standardized NOMASS imaging form with the information contained in these reports. We then generated ROC curves for both manual and automated coding by comparing our results to the original NOMASS data, where study in investigators directly coded their interpretations of brain images. The areas under the ROC curves for both manual and automated coding were the main outcome measure. The overall predictive value of the automated system (ROC area 0.85, 95% CI 0.84–0.87) was not statistically different from the predictive value of the manual coding (ROC area 0.87, 95% CI 0.83–0.91). Measured in terms of accuracy, the automated system performed slightly worse than manual coding. The overall accuracy of the automated system was 84% (CI 83–85%). The overall accuracy of manual coding was 86% (CI 84–88%). The difference in accuracy between the two methods was small but statistically significant (<em>P</em> = 0.026). Errors in manual coding appeared to be due to differences between neurologists' and nueroradiologists' interpretation, different use of detailed anatomic terms, and lack of clinical information. Automated systems can use natural language processing to rapidly perform complex data acquisition tasks. Although there is a small decrease in the accuracy of the data as compared to traditional methods, automated systems may greatly expand the power of chart review in clinical research design and implementation.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75733,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computers and biomedical research, an international journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1006/cbmr.1999.1535\",\"citationCount\":\"52\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computers and biomedical research, an international journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010480999915355\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers and biomedical research, an international journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010480999915355","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 52

摘要

使用自然语言处理的自动化系统可能会大大加快临床研究的图表审查任务,但它们在这种情况下的准确性尚不清楚。本研究的目的是比较一项正在进行的临床研究——北曼哈顿卒中研究(NOMASS)的数据采集任务中自动编码和手动编码的准确性。我们确定了NOMASS研究中使用的471份脑图像的神经放射学报告。使用自动和手动编码,我们用这些报告中包含的信息完成了标准化的NOMASS成像表格。然后,通过将我们的结果与原始NOMASS数据进行比较,我们生成了手动和自动编码的ROC曲线,在NOMASS数据中,研究人员直接编码了他们对大脑图像的解释。手动和自动编码的ROC曲线下的面积是主要的结果测量。自动化系统的总体预测值(ROC面积0.85,95% CI 0.84-0.87)与手工编码的预测值(ROC面积0.87,95% CI 0.83-0.91)无统计学差异。从准确性的角度来衡量,自动化系统的表现比手工编码稍微差一些。自动化系统的总体准确度为84% (CI 83-85%)。人工编码的总体准确率为86% (CI 84-88%)。两种方法的准确度差异不大,但有统计学意义(P = 0.026)。手工编码的错误似乎是由于神经科医生和神经放射科医生的解释差异,详细解剖术语的不同使用,以及缺乏临床信息。自动化系统可以使用自然语言处理来快速执行复杂的数据采集任务。虽然与传统方法相比,数据的准确性略有下降,但自动化系统可以极大地扩展临床研究设计和实施中图表审查的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Coding Neuroradiology Reports for the Northern Manhattan Stroke Study: A Comparison of Natural Language Processing and Manual Review

Automated systems using natural language processing may greatly speed chart review tasks for clinical research, but their accuracy in this setting is unknown. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of automated and manual coding in the data acquisition tasks of an ongoing clinical research study, the Northern Manhattan Stroke Study(NOMASS). We identified 471 neuroradiology reports of brain images used in the NOMASS study. Using both automated and manual coding, we completed a standardized NOMASS imaging form with the information contained in these reports. We then generated ROC curves for both manual and automated coding by comparing our results to the original NOMASS data, where study in investigators directly coded their interpretations of brain images. The areas under the ROC curves for both manual and automated coding were the main outcome measure. The overall predictive value of the automated system (ROC area 0.85, 95% CI 0.84–0.87) was not statistically different from the predictive value of the manual coding (ROC area 0.87, 95% CI 0.83–0.91). Measured in terms of accuracy, the automated system performed slightly worse than manual coding. The overall accuracy of the automated system was 84% (CI 83–85%). The overall accuracy of manual coding was 86% (CI 84–88%). The difference in accuracy between the two methods was small but statistically significant (P = 0.026). Errors in manual coding appeared to be due to differences between neurologists' and nueroradiologists' interpretation, different use of detailed anatomic terms, and lack of clinical information. Automated systems can use natural language processing to rapidly perform complex data acquisition tasks. Although there is a small decrease in the accuracy of the data as compared to traditional methods, automated systems may greatly expand the power of chart review in clinical research design and implementation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信