A Semiautomated Chart Review for Assessing the Development of Radiation Pneumonitis Using Natural Language Processing: Diagnostic Accuracy and Feasibility Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Health research frequently requires manual chart reviews to identify patients in a study-specific cohort and examine their clinical outcomes. Manual chart review is a labor-intensive process that requires significant time investment for clinical researchers. OBJECTIVE This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of an assisted chart review program, using an in-house rule-based text-extraction program written in Python, to identify patients who developed radiation pneumonitis (RP) after receiving curative radiotherapy. METHODS A retrospective manual chart review was completed for patients who received curative radiotherapy for stage 2-3 lung cancer from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015, at British Columbia Cancer, Kelowna Centre. In the manual chart review, RP diagnosis and grading were recorded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. From the charts of 50 sample patients, a total of 1413 clinical documents were obtained for review from the electronic medical record system. The text-extraction program was built using the Natural Language Toolkit Python platform (and regular expressions, also known as RegEx). Python version 3.7.2 was used to run the text-extraction program. The output of the text-extraction program was a list of the full sentences containing the key terms, document IDs, and dates from which these sentences were extracted. The results from the manual review were used as the gold standard in this study, with which the results of the text-extraction program were compared. RESULTS Fifty percent (25/50) of the sample patients developed grade ≥1 RP; the natural language processing program was able to ascertain 92% (23/25) of these patients (sensitivity 0.92, 95% CI 0.74-0.99; specificity 0.36, 95% CI 0.18-0.57). Furthermore, the text-extraction program was able to correctly identify all 9 patients with grade ≥2 RP, which are patients with clinically significant symptoms (sensitivity 1.0, 95% CI 0.66-1.0; specificity 0.27, 95% CI 0.14-0.43). The program was useful for distinguishing patients with RP from those without RP. The text-extraction program in this study avoided unnecessary manual review of 22% (11/50) of the sample patients, as these patients were identified as grade 0 RP and would not require further manual review in subsequent studies. CONCLUSIONS This feasibility study showed that the text-extraction program was able to assist with the identification of patients who developed RP after curative radiotherapy. The program streamlines the manual chart review further by identifying the key sentences of interest. This work has the potential to improve future clinical research, as the text-extraction program shows promise in performing chart review in a more time-efficient manner, compared with the traditional labor-intensive manual chart review.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".