Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology Experimental
Published in: European Radiology Experimental 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Narrative review

Big data, artificial intelligence, and structured reporting

Authors: Daniel Pinto dos Santos, Bettina Baeßler

Published in: European Radiology Experimental | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

The past few years have seen a considerable rise in interest towards artificial intelligence and machine learning applications in radiology. However, in order for such systems to perform adequately, large amounts of training data are required. These data should ideally be standardised and of adequate quality to allow for further usage in training of artificial intelligence algorithms. Unfortunately, in many current clinical and radiological information technology ecosystems, access to relevant pieces of information is difficult. This is mostly because a significant portion of information is handled as a collection of narrative texts and interoperability is still lacking. This review aims at giving a brief overview on how structured reporting can help to facilitate research in artificial intelligence and the context of big data.
Literature
1.
Chartrand G, Cheng PM, Vorontsov E et al (2017) Deep Learning: a primer for radiologists. Radiographics 37:2113–2131CrossRef
2.
3.
Gerstmair A, Daumke P, Simon K, Langer M, Kotter E (2012) Intelligent image retrieval based on radiology reports. Eur Radiol 22:2750–2758CrossRef
4.
Chen PH, Zafar H, Galperin-Aizenberg M, Cook T (2018) Integrating natural language processing and machine learning algorithms to categorize oncologic response in radiology reports. J Digit Imaging 31:174–184CrossRef
5.
Pons E, Braun LMM, Hunink MG, Kors JA (2016) Natural language processing in radiology: a systematic review. Radiology 279:329–343CrossRef
6.
Chen MC, Ball RL, Yang L et al (2018) Deep learning to classify radiology free-text reports. Radiology 286:845–852CrossRef
7.
Herzog R, Elgort DR, Flanders AE, Moley PJ (2017) Variability in diagnostic error rates of 10 MRI centers performing lumbar spine MRI examinations on the same patient within a 3-week period. Spine J 17:554–561CrossRef
8.
9.
10.
Wang X, Peng Y, Lu L, Lu Z, Bagheri M, Summers R (2017) ChestX-ray8: hospital-scale chest x-ray database and benchmarks on weakly-supervised classification and localization of common thorax diseases. Available via: https://​arxiv.​org/​abs/​1705.​02315. Accessed 12 Aug 2018
11.
12.
Bosmans JM, Weyler JJ, De Schepper AM, Parizel PM (2011) The radiology report as seen by radiologists and referring clinicians: results of the COVER and ROVER surveys. Radiology 259:184–195CrossRef
13.
Plumb AA, Grieve FM, Khan SH (2009) Survey of hospital clinicians’ preferences regarding the format of radiology reports. Clin Radiol 64:386–396CrossRef
14.
Grieve FM, Plumb AA, Khan SH (2010) Radiology reporting: a general practitioner’s perspective. Br J Radiol 83:17–22CrossRef
15.
Doğan N, Varlibaş ZN, Erpolat OP (2010) Radiological report: expectations of clinicians. Diagn Interv Radiol 16:179–185
16.
Lee B, Whitehead MT (2017) Radiology reports: what YOU think you’re saying and what THEY think you’re saying. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 46:186–195CrossRef
17.
Schwartz LH, Panicek DM, Berk AR, Li Y, Hricak H (2011) Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting. Radiology 260:174–181CrossRef
18.
Brook OR, Brook A, Vollmer CM, Kent TS, Sanchez N, Pedrosa I (2015) Structured reporting of multiphasic CT for pancreatic cancer: potential effect on staging and surgical planning. Radiology 274:464–472CrossRef
19.
20.
Morgan TA, Helibrun ME, Kahn CE Jr (2014) Reporting Initiative of the Radiological Society of North America: progress and new directions. Radiology 273:642–645CrossRef
21.
22.
Rubin DL (2008) Creating and curating a terminology for radiology: ontology modeling and analysis. J Digit Imaging 21:355–362CrossRef
23.
European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2018) ESR paper on structured reporting in radiology. Insights Imaging 9:1–7
24.
Anderson TJT, Lu N, Brook OR (2017) Disease-specific report templates for your practice. J Am Coll Radiol 14:1055–1057CrossRef
25.
Al-Hawary MM, Francis IR, Chari ST et al (2014) Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma radiology reporting template: consensus statement of the Society of Abdominal Radiology and the American Pancreatic Association. Radiology 270:248–260CrossRef
26.
KSAR Study Group for Rectal Cancer (2017) Essential items for structured reporting of rectal cancer MRI: 2016 Consensus Recommendation from the Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology. Korean J Radiol 18:132–151CrossRef
27.
Pinto dos Santos D, Klos G, Kloeckner R, Oberle R, Dueber C, Mildenberger P (2017) Development of an IHE MRRT-compliant open-source web-based reporting platform. Eur Radiol 27:424–430CrossRef
28.
29.
Nguyen GK, Shetty AS (2018) Artificial intelligence and machine learning: opportunities for radiologists in training. J Am Coll Radiol 15:1320–1321CrossRef
30.
Choy G, Khalilzadeh O, Michalski M et al (2018) Current applications and future impact of machine learning in radiology. Radiology 288:318–328CrossRef
31.
Beam AL, Kohane IS (2018) Big data and machine learning in health care. JAMA 319:1317–1318CrossRef
32.
Curtis C, Liu C, Bollerman TJ, Pianykh OS (2017) Machine learning for predicting patient wait times and appointment delays. J Am Coll Radiol 15:1310–1316CrossRef
33.
Harvey HB, Liu C, Ai J (2017) Predicting no-shows in radiology using regression modeling of data available in the electronic medical record. J Am Coll Radiol 14:1303–1309CrossRef
34.
Shelver J, Wendt CH, McClure M et al (2017) Effect of an automated tracking registry on the rate of tracking failure in incidental pulmonary nodules. J Am Coll Radiol 14:773–777CrossRef
35.
Bosmans JM, Neri E, Ratib O, Kahn CE Jr (2015) Structured reporting: a fusion reactor hungry for fuel. Insights Imaging 6:129–132CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Big data, artificial intelligence, and structured reporting
Authors
Daniel Pinto dos Santos
Bettina Baeßler
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
European Radiology Experimental / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 2509-9280
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-018-0071-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

European Radiology Experimental 1/2018 Go to the issue

Original article

The potential toxic impact of different gadolinium-based contrast agents combined with 7-T MRI on isolated human lymphocytes

Technical note

Cord cross-sectional area at foramen magnum as a correlate of disability in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

Original article

A visual quality control scale for clinical arterial spin labeling images

Original article

Changes in total choline concentration in the breast of healthy fertile young women in relation to menstrual cycle or use of oral contraceptives: a 3-T 1H-MRS study

Original article

Photoacoustic imaging of tumour vascular permeability with indocyanine green in a mouse model

Technical note

Feasibility of 7-T fluorine magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (19F MRSI) for TAS-102 metabolite detection in the liver of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer