Cited by 573Biomedical Text Mining and OntologiesMachine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Natural language processing in radiology: a systematic review

Pons, Ewoud, Braun, Loes M. M., Hunink, M. G. Myriam, Kors, Jan A.·2016·Radiology

Abstract

Radiological reporting has generated large quantities of digital content within the electronic health record, which is potentially a valuable source of information for improving clinical care and supporting research. Although radiology reports are stored for communication and documentation of diagnostic imaging, harnessing their potential requires efficient and automated information extraction: they exist mainly as free-text clinical narrative, from which it is a major challenge to obtain structured data. Natural language processing (NLP) provides techniques that aid the conversion of text into a structured representation, and thus enables computers to derive meaning from human (ie, natural language) input. Used on radiology reports, NLP techniques enable automatic identification and extraction of information. By exploring the various purposes for their use, this review examines how radiology benefits from NLP. A systematic literature search identified 67 relevant publications describing NLP methods that support practical applications in radiology. This review takes a close look at the individual studies in terms of tasks (ie, the extracted information), the NLP methodology and tools used, and their application purpose and performance results. Additionally, limitations, future challenges, and requirements for advancing NLP in radiology will be discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1148/radiol.16142770

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Deep learning methods have been used for automated generation of radiology reports, typically incorporating LSTM network models to generate textual paragraphs, and to identify findings in radiology reports.

    “Recently, deep learning methods have also been used for automated generation of radiology reports , typically incorporating long-short-term-memory (LSTM) network models to generate the textual paragraphs [314, 315, 316, 317], and also to identify findings in radiology reports [318, 319, 320].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pons, E., Braun, L. M. M., Hunink, M. G. M., & Kors, J. A.
Affiliations
Erasmus MC (NL)
Venue
Radiology
Published
2016-05
Volume
279
Issue
2
Pages
329-343
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2338526423
Cited by
573
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 69 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 82 · 2021: 85 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 3
FWCI
3.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
natural language processing, radiology reports, clinical text mining, information extraction, structured data extraction, electronic health records, clinical decision support
MeSH terms
Humans, Natural Language Processing, Radiology, Radiology Information Systems, Information Storage and Retrieval, Electronic Health Records

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