Structured report data can be used to develop deep learning algorithms: a proof of concept in ankle radiographs.
Ankle fractures
Machine learning
Radiography
Structured reporting
Workflow
Journal
Insights into imaging
ISSN: 1869-4101
Titre abrégé: Insights Imaging
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101532453
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Sep 2019
23 Sep 2019
Historique:
received:
08
03
2019
accepted:
09
08
2019
entrez:
25
9
2019
pubmed:
25
9
2019
medline:
25
9
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Data used for training of deep learning networks usually needs large amounts of accurate labels. These labels are usually extracted from reports using natural language processing or by time-consuming manual review. The aim of this study was therefore to develop and evaluate a workflow for using data from structured reports as labels to be used in a deep learning application. We included all plain anteriorposterior radiographs of the ankle for which structured reports were available. A workflow was designed and implemented where a script was used to automatically retrieve, convert, and anonymize the respective radiographs of cases where fractures were either present or absent from the institution's picture archiving and communication system (PACS). These images were then used to retrain a pretrained deep convolutional neural network. Finally, performance was evaluated on a set of previously unseen radiographs. Once implemented and configured, completion of the whole workflow took under 1 h. A total of 157 structured reports were retrieved from the reporting platform. For all structured reports, corresponding radiographs were successfully retrieved from the PACS and fed into the training process. On an unseen validation subset, the model showed a satisfactory performance with an area under the curve of 0.850 (95% CI 0.634-1.000) for detection of fractures. We demonstrate that data obtained from structured reports written in clinical routine can be used to successfully train deep learning algorithms. This highlights the potential role of structured reporting for the future of radiology, especially in the context of deep learning.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Data used for training of deep learning networks usually needs large amounts of accurate labels. These labels are usually extracted from reports using natural language processing or by time-consuming manual review. The aim of this study was therefore to develop and evaluate a workflow for using data from structured reports as labels to be used in a deep learning application.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
We included all plain anteriorposterior radiographs of the ankle for which structured reports were available. A workflow was designed and implemented where a script was used to automatically retrieve, convert, and anonymize the respective radiographs of cases where fractures were either present or absent from the institution's picture archiving and communication system (PACS). These images were then used to retrain a pretrained deep convolutional neural network. Finally, performance was evaluated on a set of previously unseen radiographs.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Once implemented and configured, completion of the whole workflow took under 1 h. A total of 157 structured reports were retrieved from the reporting platform. For all structured reports, corresponding radiographs were successfully retrieved from the PACS and fed into the training process. On an unseen validation subset, the model showed a satisfactory performance with an area under the curve of 0.850 (95% CI 0.634-1.000) for detection of fractures.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
We demonstrate that data obtained from structured reports written in clinical routine can be used to successfully train deep learning algorithms. This highlights the potential role of structured reporting for the future of radiology, especially in the context of deep learning.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31549305
doi: 10.1186/s13244-019-0777-8
pii: 10.1186/s13244-019-0777-8
pmc: PMC6777645
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
93Références
J Digit Imaging. 2008 Dec;21(4):355-62
pubmed: 17874267
J Am Coll Radiol. 2018 Sep;15(9):1320-1321
pubmed: 29941242
JAMA. 2018 Apr 3;319(13):1317-1318
pubmed: 29532063
Insights Imaging. 2015 Feb;6(1):129-32
pubmed: 25476598
Insights Imaging. 2018 Feb;9(1):1-7
pubmed: 29460129
Radiology. 2018 Aug;288(2):318-328
pubmed: 29944078
Radiology. 2015 Feb;274(2):464-72
pubmed: 25286323
J Digit Imaging. 2019 Jun;32(3):401-407
pubmed: 30298436
Skeletal Radiol. 2019 Feb;48(2):239-244
pubmed: 29955910
Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2017 May - Jun;46(3):186-195
pubmed: 28069356
Acta Orthop. 2018 Aug;89(4):468-473
pubmed: 29577791
J Digit Imaging. 2018 Jun;31(3):283-289
pubmed: 29725961
BMC Bioinformatics. 2011 Mar 17;12:77
pubmed: 21414208
Clin Radiol. 2009 Apr;64(4):386-94; 395-6
pubmed: 19264183
Diagn Interv Radiol. 2010 Sep;16(3):179-85
pubmed: 20648424
Eur Radiol Exp. 2018 Dec 5;2(1):42
pubmed: 30515717
Radiology. 2016 May;279(2):329-43
pubmed: 27089187
Br J Radiol. 2010 Jan;83(985):17-22
pubmed: 19470574
Radiology. 2011 Apr;259(1):184-95
pubmed: 21224423
Br J Radiol. 2018 Jun 5;:
pubmed: 29745767
Radiographics. 2017 Nov-Dec;37(7):2113-2131
pubmed: 29131760
Radiology. 2019 Jun;291(3):781-791
pubmed: 30990384
Clin Radiol. 2018 May;73(5):439-445
pubmed: 29269036
Radiology. 2011 Jul;260(1):174-81
pubmed: 21518775
Acad Radiol. 2018 Jan;25(1):66-73
pubmed: 29030284
Invest Radiol. 2017 Apr;52(4):232-239
pubmed: 27861230
Eur Radiol. 2017 Jan;27(1):424-430
pubmed: 27137649
Radiology. 2014 Dec;273(3):642-5
pubmed: 25420164