Cargando…

Automated vetting of radiology referrals: exploring natural language processing and traditional machine learning approaches

BACKGROUND: With a significant increase in utilisation of computed tomography (CT), inappropriate imaging is a significant concern. Manual justification audits of radiology referrals are time-consuming and require financial resources. We aimed to retrospectively audit justification of brain CT refer...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Potočnik, Jaka, Thomas, Edel, Killeen, Ronan, Foley, Shane, Lawlor, Aonghus, Stowe, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Vienna 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9352827/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35925429
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01267-8
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: With a significant increase in utilisation of computed tomography (CT), inappropriate imaging is a significant concern. Manual justification audits of radiology referrals are time-consuming and require financial resources. We aimed to retrospectively audit justification of brain CT referrals by applying natural language processing and traditional machine learning (ML) techniques to predict their justification based on the audit outcomes. METHODS: Two human experts retrospectively analysed justification of 375 adult brain CT referrals performed in a tertiary referral hospital during the 2019 calendar year, using a cloud-based platform for structured referring. Cohen’s kappa was computed to measure inter-rater reliability. Referrals were represented as bag-of-words (BOW) and term frequency-inverse document frequency models. Text preprocessing techniques, including custom stop words (CSW) and spell correction (SC), were applied to the referral text. Logistic regression, random forest, and support vector machines (SVM) were used to predict the justification of referrals. A test set (300/75) was used to compute weighted accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: In total, 253 (67.5%) examinations were deemed justified, 75 (20.0%) as unjustified, and 47 (12.5%) as maybe justified. The agreement between the annotators was strong (κ = 0.835). The BOW + CSW + SC + SVM outperformed other binary models with a weighted accuracy of 92%, a sensitivity of 91%, a specificity of 93%, and an AUC of 0.948. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional ML models can accurately predict justification of unstructured brain CT referrals. This offers potential for automated justification analysis of CT referrals in clinical departments.