Classification of Musculoskeletal Radiograph Requisition Appropriateness Using Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Poor quality imaging requisitions lower report quality and impede good patient care. Manual control of such requisitions is time consuming and can be a source of friction with referring physicians. The purpose of this study was to determine if poor quality requisitions could be identified automatically using machine learning and natural language processing techniques in order to allow for more efficient workflow. Methods: Exam indications from 50 000 musculoskeletal radiograph requisitions were manually classified, reviewed and deemed ‘appropriate’ or ‘inappropriate’ by two staff radiologists based on ACR appropriateness criteria. The requisitions were divided into training and test groups (80/20 split). The training set was pre-processed, converted to a bag-of-words model and used to train a Multinomial Naïve Bayes classifier which was then applied to the test set. Results: Out of 50 000 requisitions, 12 253 (24.5%) were deemed to contain an inappropriate indication. A Naive Bayes model correctly classified requisitions with an accuracy of 98%. In the test set, 107 of 7561 (1.4%) appropriate requisitions were incorrectly flagged and 92 of 2439 (3.8%) inappropriate requisitions were not flagged. Conclusions: Accurate automated identification of inappropriate indications on musculoskeletal requisitions is feasible using machine learning and natural language processing.
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 | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".