Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2010; 49(04): 360-370
DOI: 10.3414/ME09-01-0014
Original Articles
Schattauer GmbH

Development of a System that Generates Structured Reports for Chest X-ray Radiography

Y. Hasegawa
1   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Osaka, Japan
,
Y. Matsumura
2   Department of Medical Informatics, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Osaka, Japan
,
N. Mihara
1   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Osaka, Japan
,
Y. Kawakami
3   Department of Imaging System R&D Division, Konica Minolta Technology Center, Inc, Takatsuki, Osaka, Japan
,
K. Sasai
3   Department of Imaging System R&D Division, Konica Minolta Technology Center, Inc, Takatsuki, Osaka, Japan
,
H. Takeda
2   Department of Medical Informatics, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Osaka, Japan
,
H. Nakamura
1   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Osaka, Japan
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received: 16 February 2009

accepted: 19 February 2010

Publication Date:
17 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives: Radiology reports are typically made in narrative form; this is a barrier to the implementation of advanced applications for data analysis or a decision support. We developed a system that generates structured reports for chest x-ray radiography.

Methods: Based on analyzing existing reports, we determined the fundamental sentence structure of findings as compositions of procedure, region, finding, and diagnosis. We categorized the observation objects into lung, mediastinum, bone, soft tissue, and pleura and chest wall. The terms of region, finding, and diagnosis were associated with each other. We expressed the terms and the relations between the terms using a resource description framework (RDF) and developed a reporting system based on it. The system shows a list of terms in each category, and modifiers can be entered using templates that are linked to each term. This system guides users to select terms by highlighting associated terms. Fifty chest x-rays with abnormal findings were interpreted by five radiologists and reports were made either by the system or by the free-text method.

Results: The system decreased the time needed to make a report by 12.5% compared with the free-text method, and the sentences generated by the system were well concordant with those made by free-text method (F-measure = 90%). The results of the questionnaire showed that our system is applicable to radiology reports of chest x-rays in daily clinical practice.

Conclusions: The method of generating structured reports for chest x-rays was feasible, because it generated almost concordant reports in shorter time compared with the free-text method.

Keywords

Chest x-ray photography - radiology report - structured report - resource description framework - information model
 

  • References

  • 1 Tierney WM, Overhage JM, McDonald CJ. Toward electronic medical records that improve care. Ann Intern Med 1995; 122: 725-726.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Langlotz CP. Automatic structuring of radiology reports: harbinger of a second information revolution in radiology. Radiology 2002; 224: 5-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Cheung NT, Fung V, Chow YY, Tung Y. Structured data entry of clinical information for documentation and data collection. Medinfo 2001; 10: 609-613.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Langlotz CP, Meininger L. Enhancing the expressiveness and usability of structured image reporting systems. Proc AMIA Symp 2000 pp 467-471.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Williamson KB, Steele JL, Gunderman RB. Assessing radiology resident reporting skills. Radiology 2002; 225: 719-722.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Moorman PW, van Ginneken AM, van der Lei J, Van Bemmel JH. A model for structured data entry based on explicit descriptional knowledge. Methods Inf Med 1994; 33 (05) 454-463.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Los RK, van Ginneken AM, van der Lei J. OpenSDE: A strategy for expressive and flexible structured data entry. Int J Med Inform 2005; 74: 481-490.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Association National Electrical Manufactures: Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine (DICOM) 3.0, supplement 23 DICOM Structured Reporting.. Last accessed February 16, 2009. Available at: ftp://medical.nema.org/Dicom/final/sup23_ft.pdf.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Rada H, Uwe E, Andre S. DICOM Structured Reporting Part 1. Overview and Character-istics. RadioGraphics 2004; 24: 891-896.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Graig A, Usha S, Ricky T. Structured Reporting in Neuroradiology. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2002; 980: 259-266.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Luyin Z, Kwok PL, Jingkun H. Generating XML Schemas for DICOM Structured Reporting Templates. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005; 12: 72-83.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Rita N. Benefits of the DICOM Structured Report. J Digit Imaging 2006; 19: 295-306.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kamauu AW, Duvall SL, Liimatta AP, Wiggins RH, 3rd Avrin DE. Translating the IHE Teaching File and Clinical Trial Export (TCE) Profile Document Templates into Functional DICOM Structured Report Objects. J Digit Imaging 2007, Sep 4.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 RadLex, Radiology Society of North America (RSNA).. Available at http://www.radlex.com. Accessed March 2008
    PubMed
  • 15 Langlotz CP. RadLex: a new method for indexing online educational materials. Radiographics 2006; 26 (06) 1595-1597.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Marwede D, Schulz T, Kahn T. Indexing Thoracic CT Reports Using a Preliminary Version of a Standardized Radiological Lexicon (RadLex). J Digit Imaging 2007; 28: 1-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 van Ginneken AM. Structured data entry in ORCA: the strengths of two models combined. Proc AMIA Symp 1996 pp 797-801.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Johnson SB, Bakken S, Dine D, Hyun S, Mendonça E, Morrison F, Bright T, Van Vleck T, Wrenn J, Stetson P. An electronic health record based on structured narrative. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008; 15: 54-64.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 O’Connell BT, Cho C, Shah N, Brown KM, Shiffman RN. Take note(s): differential HER satisfaction with two implementations under one roof. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004; 11: 43-49.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Friedman C. A broad-coverage natural language processing system. Proc AMIA Symp 2000 pp 270-274.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Taira RK, Soderland SG. A statistical natural language processor for medical reports. Proc AMIA Symp 1999 pp 970-974.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Friedman C, Alderson PO, Austin JHLuyin Z, Kwok PL, Jingkun H. A general natural-language text processor for clinical radiology. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1994; 1 (02) 161-174.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Taira RK, Soderland SG, Jakobovits RM. et al. Automatic structuring of radiology free-text reports. RadioGraphics 2001; 21: 237-245.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Dang PA, Kalra MK, Blake MA. et al. Use of Radcube for Extraction of Finding Trends in a Large Radiology Practice. J Digit Imaging 2008 16 (June 10).
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Nishimoto N, Terae S, Uesugi M, Ogasawara K, Sakurai T. Development of a medical-text parsing algorithm based on character adjacent probability distribution for Japanese radiology reports. Methods Inf Med 2008; 47 (06) 513-521.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Ceusters W, Spyns P, De Moor G. From syntactic-semantic tagging to knowledge discovery in medical texts. Int J Med Inform 1998; 52 1–3 149-157.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Nardon FB, Moura LA. Knowledge sharing and information integration in healthcare using ontologies and deductive databases. Stud Health Technol Inform 2004; 107 Pt (01) 62-66.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Baneyx A, Charlet J, Jaulent MC. Methodology to Build Medical Ontology from Textual Resources. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2006 pp 21-25.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Qamar R, Kola J, Rector AL. Unambiguous data modeling to ensure higher accuracy term binding to clinical terminologies. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2007; 11: 608-613.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Lassila O, Swick R. World Wide Web consortium: Resource description framework (RDF) model and syntax specification, 1999. Last accessed December 18, 2008. Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/PRrdf-syntax.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Berners LT, Hendler J, Lassila O. The semantic web. Scientific American 2001; 5: 34-43.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Berners LT. Information management: A proposal (The original proposal of the WWW; March 1989, May 1990). Last accessed February 16, 2009. Available at: http://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.rtf.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Prud’hommeaux E, Seaborne A. World Wide Web consortium: SPARQL Query Language for RDF, 2008. Last accessed July 1, 2009. Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR./rdf-sparql-query.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Boulos MN, Roudsari AV, Carson ER. Towards a semantic medical Web:HealthCyberMap’s tool for building an RDF metadata base of health information resources based on the Qualified Dublin Core Metadata Set. Med Sci Monit 2002; 8 (07) MT124-36.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Eclipse.org: Eclipse universal tool platform.. Last accessed February 16, 2009. Available at: http://www.eclipse.org.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Eclipse Foundation, Eclipse Graph Editing Framework: Last accessed February 16, 2009. Available at: http://www.eclipse.org/gef.
    PubMed
  • 37 Postgre SQL, PostgreSQL Global Development Group: Last accessed February 16, 2009. Available at: http://www.postgresql.org.
    PubMed
  • 38 Jena semantic web framework, Sourceforge.net: Last accessed February 16, 2009. Available at: http://jena.sourceforge.net.
    PubMed
  • 39 Hripcsak G, Rothschild AS. Agreement, the f-measure, and reliability in information retrieval. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005; 12 (03) 296-298.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Roberts A, Gaizauskas R, Hepple M. et al. The CLEF corpus: semantic annotation of clinical text. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2007 pp 625-629.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Robert HD, Liora A, Sandy B, Calvin B. HL7 clinical document architecture, release 2.0, 2004. Health Level Seven. Last accessed February 16, 2009. Available at: http://xml.coverpages.org/CDA-20040830v3.pdf.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Gerdsen F, Müller S, Jablonski S, Prokosch HU. Standardized exchange of clinical documents, towards a shared care paradigm in glaucoma treatment. Methods Inf Med 2006; 45 (04) 359-366.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Klein A, Prokosch HU, Müller M, Ganslandt T. Experiences with an interoperable data acquisition platform for multi-centric research networks based on HL7 CDA. Methods Inf Med 2007; 46 (05) 580-585.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar