The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A General Natural-language Text Processor for Clinical Radiology
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: Development of a general natural-language processor that identifies clinical information in narrative reports and maps that information into a structured representation containing clinical terms. DESIGN: The natural-language processor provides three phases of processing, all of which are driven by different knowledge sources. The first phase performs the parsing. It identifies the structure of the text through use of a grammar that defines semantic patterns and a target form. The second phase, regularization, standardizes the terms in the initial target structure via a compositional mapping of multi-word phrases. The third phase, encoding, maps the terms to a controlled vocabulary. Radiology is the test domain for the processor and the target structure is a formal model for representing clinical information in that domain. MEASUREMENTS: The impression sections of 230 radiology reports were encoded by the processor. Results of an automated query of the resultant database for the occurrences of four diseases were compared with the analysis of a panel of three physicians to determine recall and precision. RESULTS: Without training specific to the four diseases, recall and precision of the system (combined effect of the processor and query generator) were 70% and 87%. Training of the query component increased recall to 85% without changing precision.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Mining electronic health records: towards better research applications and clinical care
Jensen, P. B., Jensen, L. J., & Brunak, S. (2012) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg3208 · Cited by 1,680
Clinical information extraction applications: A literature review
Wang, Y., Wang, L., Rastegar-Mojarad, M., Moon, S., Shen, F., Afzal, N., Liu, S., Zeng, Y., Mehrabi, S., Sohn, S., et al. (2018) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2017.11.011 · Cited by 910
Savova, G. K., Kipper-Schuler, K. C., Hurdle, J. F., & Meystre, S. M. (2008) · Yearbook of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1638592 · Cited by 895
What can natural language processing do for clinical decision support?
Demner-Fushman, D., Chapman, W. W., & McDonald, C. J. (2009) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2009.08.007 · Cited by 688
Data from clinical notes: a perspective on the tension between structure and flexible documentation
Rosenbloom, S. T., Denny, J. C., Xu, H., Lorenzi, N., Stead, W. W., & Johnson, K. B. (2011) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/jamia.2010.007237 · Cited by 404
Metadata
- Authors
- Friedman, C., Alderson, P. O., Austin, J. H. M., Cimino, J. J., & Johnson, S. B.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1994-03-01
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 161-174
- ISSN
- 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-974X
- OpenAlex
- W1504212872
- Cited by
- 778
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A General Natural-language Text Processor for Clinical Radiology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/jamia.1994.95236146
- The paper
- Friedman, C., Alderson, P. O., Austin, J. H. M., Cimino, J. J., & Johnson, S. B. (1994). A General Natural-language Text Processor for Clinical Radiology. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.1994.95236146
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.