Natural Language Processing in Diagnostic Texts from Nephropathology

Abstract

Introduction: This study investigates whether it is possible to predict a final diagnosis based on a written nephropathological description—as a surrogate for image analysis—using various NLP methods. Methods: For this work, 1107 unlabelled nephropathological reports were included. (i) First, after separating each report into its microscopic description and diagnosis section, the diagnosis sections were clustered unsupervised to less than 20 diagnostic groups using different clustering techniques. (ii) Second, different text classification methods were used to predict the diagnostic group based on the microscopic description section. Results: The best clustering results (i) could be achieved with HDBSCAN, using BoW-based feature extraction methods. Based on keywords, these clusters can be mapped to certain diagnostic groups. A transformer encoder-based approach as well as an SVM worked best regarding diagnosis prediction based on the histomorphological description (ii). Certain diagnosis groups reached F1-scores of up to 0.892 while others achieved weak classification metrics. Conclusion: While textual morphological description alone enables retrieving the correct diagnosis for some entities, it does not work sufficiently for other entities. This is in accordance with a previous image analysis study on glomerular change patterns, where some diagnoses are associated with one pattern, but for others, there exists a complex pattern combination.

Natural Language Processing Can Automate Extraction of Barrett’s Esophagus Endoscopy Quality Metrics

“…In the future, deep learning approaches could allow a more generalizable means of extracting BE pathology diagnoses from free text notes thereby reducing the need to develop complex rule-based algorithms (32)(33)(34). However, even this approach has limitations, as privacy concerns limit the transportability of model weights across institutions and deep learning models can still be prone to over-fitting to the development dataset.…”

Association between chiropractic spinal manipulation and cauda equina syndrome in adults with low back pain: Retrospective cohort study of US academic health centers

“…This feature includes mechanisms to understand negation (e.g., absence of a condition), intent, and context, thus aiding us in (1) excluding patients with prior CES as noted in free text in medical records, and (2) identifying new diagnoses of CES during follow-up. Prior studies have demonstrated that this software has acceptable accuracy, reliability, and agreement when compared to manual chart review for extracting clinical concepts related to diagnoses, laboratory values, medications, and symptoms [ 41 , 42 ].…”

Association between spinal manipulative therapy and lumbar spine reoperation after discectomy: a retrospective cohort study

“…The natural language processing feature of TriNetX uses Averbis software (Averbis, Freiburg im Breisgau, DE), which employs machine learning and rules-based algorithms to extract meaning from unstructured clinical text while incorporating mechanisms to interpret context, intent, and negation [ 21 , 22 ]. In previous studies, this software has demonstrated acceptable accuracy, reliability, and concordance with manual chart review in extracting clinical concepts related to diagnoses, symptoms, medications, and laboratory values [ 22 , 23 ]. Specifically, studies estimated an overall Kappa value of 0.79 (good agreement) [ 22 ] and F1 values up to 0.89 representing the harmonic mean of recall and precision [ 22 , 23 ].…”

“…In previous studies, this software has demonstrated acceptable accuracy, reliability, and concordance with manual chart review in extracting clinical concepts related to diagnoses, symptoms, medications, and laboratory values [ 22 , 23 ]. Specifically, studies estimated an overall Kappa value of 0.79 (good agreement) [ 22 ] and F1 values up to 0.89 representing the harmonic mean of recall and precision [ 22 , 23 ]. However, performance of this software may vary across different clinical contexts.…”