OpenAlex · Aktualisierung stündlich · Letzte Aktualisierung: 16.05.2026, 07:23

Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.

Deep Learning–based Assessment of Oncologic Outcomes from Natural Language Processing of Structured Radiology Reports

2022·50 Zitationen·Radiology Artificial IntelligenceOpen Access
Volltext beim Verlag öffnen

50

Zitationen

14

Autoren

2022

Jahr

Abstract

Purpose: To train a deep natural language processing (NLP) model, using data mined structured oncology reports (SOR), for rapid tumor response category (TRC) classification from free-text oncology reports (FTOR) and to compare its performance with human readers and conventional NLP algorithms. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, databases of three independent radiology departments were queried for SOR and FTOR dated from March 2018 to August 2021. An automated data mining and curation pipeline was developed to extract Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors-related TRCs for SOR for ground truth definition. The deep NLP bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) model and three feature-rich algorithms were trained on SOR to predict TRCs in FTOR. Models' F1 scores were compared against scores of radiologists, medical students, and radiology technologist students. Lexical and semantic analyses were conducted to investigate human and model performance on FTOR. Results: Oncologic findings and TRCs were accurately mined from 9653 of 12 833 (75.2%) queried SOR, yielding oncology reports from 10 455 patients (mean age, 60 years ± 14 [SD]; 5303 women) who met inclusion criteria. On 802 FTOR in the test set, BERT achieved better TRC classification results (F1, 0.70; 95% CI: 0.68, 0.73) than the best-performing reference linear support vector classifier (F1, 0.63; 95% CI: 0.61, 0.66) and technologist students (F1, 0.65; 95% CI: 0.63, 0.67), had similar performance to medical students (F1, 0.73; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.75), but was inferior to radiologists (F1, 0.79; 95% CI: 0.78, 0.81). Lexical complexity and semantic ambiguities in FTOR influenced human and model performance, revealing maximum F1 score drops of -0.17 and -0.19, respectively. Conclusion: © RSNA, 2022.

Ähnliche Arbeiten