Natural language processing in pathology: a scoping review.
Clicks: 237
ID: 38119
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Star Article
30.3
/100
237 views
36 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
StarRanked #3 of 5 articles by views in journal of clinical pathology
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Encoded pathology data are key for medical registries and analyses, but pathology information is often expressed as free text.We reviewed and assessed the use of NLP (natural language processing) for encoding pathology documents.Papers addressing NLP in pathology were retrieved from PubMed, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library and Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) Anthology. We reviewed and summarised the study objectives; NLP methods used and their validation; software implementations; the performance on the dataset used and any reported use in practice.The main objectives of the 38 included papers were encoding and extraction of clinically relevant information from pathology reports. Common approaches were word/phrase matching, probabilistic machine learning and rule-based systems. Five papers (13%) compared different methods on the same dataset. Four papers did not specify the method(s) used. 18 of the 26 studies that reported F-measure, recall or precision reported values of over 0.9. Proprietary software was the most frequently mentioned category (14 studies); General Architecture for Text Engineering (GATE) was the most applied architecture overall. Practical system use was reported in four papers. Most papers used expert annotation validation.Different methods are used in NLP research in pathology, and good performances, that is, high precision and recall, high retrieval/removal rates, are reported for all of these. Lack of validation and of shared datasets precludes performance comparison. More comparative analysis and validation are needed to provide better insight into the performance and merits of these methods.
| Reference Key |
burger2016naturaljournal
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Burger, Gerard;Abu-Hanna, Ameen;de Keizer, Nicolette;Cornet, Ronald; |
| Journal | journal of clinical pathology |
| Year | 2016 |
| DOI |
jclinpath-2016-203872
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.