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
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.9%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 6%
10.3%
3
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.9%
4
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
5
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.7%
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 38%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
7
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.8%
8
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 13%
2.1%
9
Database
51 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
10
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.9%
11
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
12
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
13
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 17%
1.5%
14
Medical Image Analysis
33 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.5%
15
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
16
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
17
Neuroinformatics
40 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
18
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
19
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
20
Communications Medicine
85 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
21
Neuro-Oncology Advances
24 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
22
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
45 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
23
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
24
Metabolites
50 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
25
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
26
Radiotherapy and Oncology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
27
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
28
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
29
Journal of the Neurological Sciences
17 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
30
Neurocomputing
13 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%