Automating Stroke Data Extraction From Free-Text Radiology Reports Using Natural Language Processing: Instrument Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic neurovascular imaging data are important in stroke research, but obtaining these data typically requires laborious manual chart reviews. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the accuracy of a natural language processing (NLP) approach to extract information on the presence and location of vascular occlusions as well as other stroke-related attributes based on free-text reports. METHODS: From the full reports of 1320 consecutive computed tomography (CT), CT angiography, and CT perfusion scans of the head and neck performed at a tertiary stroke center between October 2017 and January 2019, we manually extracted data on the presence of proximal large vessel occlusion (primary outcome), as well as distal vessel occlusion, ischemia, hemorrhage, Alberta stroke program early CT score (ASPECTS), and collateral status (secondary outcomes). Reports were randomly split into training (n=921) and validation (n=399) sets, and attributes were extracted using rule-based NLP. We reported the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and the overall accuracy of the NLP approach relative to the manually extracted data. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of large vessel occlusion was 12.2%. In the training sample, the NLP approach identified this attribute with an overall accuracy of 97.3% (95.5% sensitivity, 98.1% specificity, 84.1% PPV, and 99.4% NPV). In the validation set, the overall accuracy was 95.2% (90.0% sensitivity, 97.4% specificity, 76.3% PPV, and 98.5% NPV). The accuracy of identifying distal or basilar occlusion as well as hemorrhage was also high, but there were limitations in identifying cerebral ischemia, ASPECTS, and collateral status. CONCLUSIONS: NLP may improve the efficiency of large-scale imaging data collection for stroke surveillance and research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".