PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 8243070

Monitoring free-text data using medical language processing.

Abstract

In this paper, we describe a software system for automated monitoring of free-text data in a medical information system that we call RadTRAC (Radiology Text Report Analyzer and Classifier). RadTRAC uses a medical language processing tool and rules derived from statistical analysis of a database to process free-text chest X-ray (CXR) reports and identify reports that describe new or expanding neoplasms for the purpose of monitoring the follow-up of these patients. To evaluate the RadTRAC system, we examined a set of 470 consecutive radiology reports at the Veterans Administration Medical Center, Palo Alto, CA. We compared RadTRAC classification of CXR reports with retrospective expert classification of the reports and with clinical classification from CXR films as recorded in a logbook while the films were being read. The RadTRAC system had a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 82% using the logbook as the gold standard. This was similar to the performance of expert radiologists (sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 90%). We then reviewed the charts, appointment schedule, and subsequent X-ray reports of cases either in the logbook or that were identified by RadTRAC as needing follow-up. Two cases in the logbook could have potentially benefited from an automatic monitoring system to ensure follow-up. RadTRAC identified six confirmed new tumors or new metastatic lesions that were not in the logbook. Six other cases were identified by the RadTRAC system with suspicious X-ray findings that had either no follow-up or no further mention of the X-ray lesion in medical records. This suggests that a reminder system based on the RadTRAC technology would be potentially useful.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D Zingmond, L A Lenert. 1993. Monitoring free-text data using medical language processing.. https://doi.org/10.1006/cbmr.1993.1033

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Common bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Ontario: does ICD-9 coding indicate true incidence?

BACKGROUND: Recent reports in the scientific and lay press have suggested that bile duct injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy are common in Ontario. The reports were based on administrative data collected by hospital medical records departments and the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). The current study involved a direct inspection of hospital records to determine if the CIHI data accurately captured the rate of clinically significant bile duct complications. METHODS: For the period 1991 to 1995, records of bile duct injuries after laparoscopic cholecystectomy were independently evaluated to clarify the clinical significance of the complications. Of 21 Ontario hospitals for which data on complications had been reported in the media, 18 provided detailed information on all patients reported to have suffered bile duct complications classified by the hospital as "major". In addition, each institution provided information on a random sample of one-sixth of the patients who had suffered complications classified as "minor". The reviewer then examined each relevant hospital chart to assess the grade and significance of the reported complications. RESULTS: All 24 bile duct injuries classified by the hospitals as "major" were confirmed as major (clinically relevant) injuries. Of the 80 bile duct complications classified by the hospitals as "minor", 76 (95%) were irrelevant to patient outcome. The discrepancy between data collected and reported frequency of injury lies in the use of nonspecific coding methods. INTERPRETATION: The rate of significant bile duct injuries cannot be inferred from nonspecific codes taken from the International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision, and presented in hospital discharge records. Therefore, such data must be interpreted with extreme caution.

Abstracting and Indexing