Using Recurrent Neural Networks to Extract High-Quality Information From Lung Cancer Screening Computerized Tomography Reports for Inter-Radiologist Audit and Feedback Quality Improvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Lung cancer screening programs generate a high volume of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reports that contain valuable information, typically in a free-text format. High-performance named-entity recognition (NER) models can extract relevant information from these reports automatically for inter-radiologist quality control. METHODS: Using LDCT report data from a longitudinal lung cancer screening program (8,305 reports; 3,124 participants; 2006-2019), we trained a rule-based model and two bidirectional long short-term memory (Bi-LSTM) NER neural network models to detect clinically relevant information from LDCT reports. Model performance was tested using F1 scores and compared with a published open-source radiology NER model (Stanza) in an independent evaluation set of 150 reports. The top performing model was applied to a data set of 6,948 reports for an inter-radiologist quality control assessment. RESULTS: The best performing model, a Bi-LSTM NER recurrent neural network model, had an overall F1 score of 0.950, which outperformed Stanza (F1 score = 0.872) and a rule-based NER model (F1 score = 0.809). Recall (sensitivity) for the best Bi-LSTM model ranged from 0.916 to 0.991 for different entity types; precision (positive predictive value) ranged from 0.892 to 0.997. Test performance remained stable across time periods. There was an average of a 2.86-fold difference in the number of identified entities between the most and the least detailed radiologists. CONCLUSION: We built an open-source Bi-LSTM NER model that outperformed other open-source or rule-based radiology NER models. This model can efficiently extract clinically relevant information from lung cancer screening computerized tomography reports with high accuracy, enabling efficient audit and feedback to improve quality of patient care.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".