» Articles » PMID: 36980376

Performance and Agreement When Annotating Chest X-ray Text Reports-A Preliminary Step in the Development of a Deep Learning-Based Prioritization and Detection System

Abstract

A chest X-ray report is a communicative tool and can be used as data for developing artificial intelligence-based decision support systems. For both, consistent understanding and labeling is important. Our aim was to investigate how readers would comprehend and annotate 200 chest X-ray reports. Reports written between 1 January 2015 and 11 March 2022 were selected based on search words. Annotators included three board-certified radiologists, two trained radiologists (physicians), two radiographers (radiological technicians), a non-radiological physician, and a medical student. Consensus labels by two or more of the experienced radiologists were considered "gold standard". Matthew's correlation coefficient (MCC) was calculated to assess annotation performance, and descriptive statistics were used to assess agreement between individual annotators and labels. The intermediate radiologist had the best correlation to "gold standard" (MCC 0.77). This was followed by the novice radiologist and medical student (MCC 0.71 for both), the novice radiographer (MCC 0.65), non-radiological physician (MCC 0.64), and experienced radiographer (MCC 0.57). Our findings showed that for developing an artificial intelligence-based support system, if trained radiologists are not available, annotations from non-radiological annotators with basic and general knowledge may be more aligned with radiologists compared to annotations from sub-specialized medical staff, if their sub-specialization is outside of diagnostic radiology.

Citing Articles

Editorial on Special Issue "Artificial Intelligence in Image-Based Screening, Diagnostics, and Clinical Care".

Rajaraman S, Xue Z, Antani S Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(17).

PMID: 39272768 PMC: 11393920. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14171984.


LNDb v4: pulmonary nodule annotation from medical reports.

Ferreira C, Sousa C, Marques I, Sousa P, Ramos I, Coimbra M Sci Data. 2024; 11(1):512.

PMID: 38760418 PMC: 11101445. DOI: 10.1038/s41597-024-03345-6.

References
1.
Wootton D, Feldman C . The diagnosis of pneumonia requires a chest radiograph (x-ray)-yes, no or sometimes?. Pneumonia (Nathan). 2019; 5(Suppl 1):1-7. PMC: 5922324. DOI: 10.15172/pneu.2014.5/464. View

2.
Mehrotra P, Bosemani V, Cox J . Do radiologists still need to report chest x rays?. Postgrad Med J. 2009; 85(1005):339-41. DOI: 10.1136/pgmj.2007.066712. View

3.
van Es B, Reteig L, Tan S, Schraagen M, Hemker M, Arends S . Negation detection in Dutch clinical texts: an evaluation of rule-based and machine learning methods. BMC Bioinformatics. 2023; 24(1):10. PMC: 9830789. DOI: 10.1186/s12859-022-05130-x. View

4.
Shinagare A, Lacson R, Boland G, Wang A, Silverman S, Mayo-Smith W . Radiologist Preferences, Agreement, and Variability in Phrases Used to Convey Diagnostic Certainty in Radiology Reports. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018; 16(4 Pt A):458-464. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2018.09.052. View

5.
Willemink M, Koszek W, Hardell C, Wu J, Fleischmann D, Harvey H . Preparing Medical Imaging Data for Machine Learning. Radiology. 2020; 295(1):4-15. PMC: 7104701. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2020192224. View