↓ Skip to main content

Natural language processing of radiology reports for the detection of thromboembolic diseases and clinically relevant incidental findings

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
patent
26 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Natural language processing of radiology reports for the detection of thromboembolic diseases and clinically relevant incidental findings
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-15-266
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne-Dominique Pham, Aurélie Névéol, Thomas Lavergne, Daisuke Yasunaga, Olivier Clément, Guy Meyer, Rémy Morello, Anita Burgun

Abstract

Natural Language Processing (NLP) has been shown effective to analyze the content of radiology reports and identify diagnosis or patient characteristics. We evaluate the combination of NLP and machine learning to detect thromboembolic disease diagnosis and incidental clinically relevant findings from angiography and venography reports written in French. We model thromboembolic diagnosis and incidental findings as a set of concepts, modalities and relations between concepts that can be used as features by a supervised machine learning algorithm. A corpus of 573 radiology reports was de-identified and manually annotated with the support of NLP tools by a physician for relevant concepts, modalities and relations. A machine learning classifier was trained on the dataset interpreted by a physician for diagnosis of deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism and clinically relevant incidental findings. Decision models accounted for the imbalanced nature of the data and exploited the structure of the reports.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
India 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 116 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 18%
Student > Master 20 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 6 5%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 28 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 29%
Computer Science 27 22%
Engineering 6 5%
Linguistics 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 35 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 November 2023.
All research outputs
#5,187,285
of 24,476,221 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,902
of 7,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,735
of 235,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#38
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,476,221 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 235,069 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.