Automated image label extraction from radiology reports — A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine Learning models need large amounts of annotated data for training. In the field of medical imaging, labeled data is especially difficult to obtain because the annotations have to be performed by qualified physicians. Natural Language Processing (NLP) tools can be applied to radiology reports to extract labels for medical images automatically. Compared to manual labeling, this approach requires smaller annotation efforts and can therefore facilitate the creation of labeled medical image data sets. In this article, we summarize the literature on this topic spanning from 2013 to 2023, starting with a meta-analysis of the included articles, followed by a qualitative and quantitative systematization of the results. Overall, we found four types of studies on the extraction of labels from radiology reports: those describing systems based on symbolic NLP, statistical NLP, neural NLP, and those describing systems combining or comparing two or more of the latter. Despite the large variety of existing approaches, there is still room for further improvement. This work can contribute to the development of new techniques or the improvement of existing ones.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".