Back

Diagnostic surveillance of high-grade gliomas: towards automated change detection using radiology report classification

Di Noto, T.; Atat, C.; Teiga, E. G.; Hegi, M.; Hottinger, A.; Cuadra, M. B.; Hagmann, P.; Richiardi, J.

2021-09-27 oncology
10.1101/2021.09.24.21264002 medRxiv
Show abstract

Natural Language Processing (NLP) on electronic health records (EHRs) can be used to monitor the evolution of pathologies over time to facilitate diagnosis and improve decision-making. In this study, we designed an NLP pipeline to classify Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) radiology reports of patients with high-grade gliomas. Specifically, we aimed to distinguish reports indicating changes in tumors between one examination and the follow-up examination (treatment response/tumor progression versus stability). A total of 164 patients with 361 associated reports were retrieved from routine imaging, and reports were labeled by one radiologist. First, we assessed which embedding is more suitable when working with limited data, in French, from a specific domain. To do so, we compared a classic embedding techniques, TF-IDF, to a neural embedding technique, Doc2Vec, after hyperparameter optimization for both. A random forest classifier was used to classify the reports into stable (unchanged tumor) or unstable (changed tumor). Second, we applied the post-hoc LIME explainability tool to understand the decisions taken by the model. Overall, classification results obtained in repeated 5-fold cross-validation with TF-IDF reached around 89% AUC and were significantly better than those achieved with Doc2Vec (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P = 0.009). The explainability toolkit run on TF-IDF revealed some interesting patterns: first, words indicating change such as progression were rightfully frequent for reports classified as unstable; similarly, words indicating no change such as not were frequent for reports classified as stable. Lastly, the toolkit discovered misleading words such as T2 which are clearly not directly relevant for the task. All the code used for this study is made available.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.5%
2
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
7.5%
3
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 8%
7.5%
4
Biology Methods and Protocols
61 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
5
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 30%
5.0%
6
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.2%
50% of probability mass above
7
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
8
Neuroinformatics
46 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.5%
9
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 11%
2.5%
10
Journal of Neuro-Oncology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
11
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.2%
12
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
13
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
14
Frontiers in Oncology
103 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
15
Aperture Neuro
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
16
European Radiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
17
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
18
Brain and Behavior
43 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.2%
19
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
20
Neuro-Oncology Advances
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
21
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 12%
1.1%
22
Medical Image Analysis
35 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
23
Database
61 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
24
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
25
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 55%
0.9%
26
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
60 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
27
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
28
Cureus
68 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
29
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
30
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 33%
0.9%