Cited by 126Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationTopic Modeling

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Learning to Summarize Radiology Findings

Open access
Zhang, Yuhao, Ding, Daisy Yi, Qian, Tianpei, Manning, Christopher D., Langlotz, Curtis P.·2018·Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Health Text Mining and Information Analysis

Abstract

The Impression section of a radiology report summarizes crucial radiology findings in natural language and plays a central role in communicating these findings to physicians.However, the process of generating impressions by summarizing findings is time-consuming for radiologists and prone to errors.We propose to automate the generation of radiology impressions with neural sequence-to-sequence learning.We further propose a customized neural model for this task which learns to encode the study background information and use this information to guide the decoding process.On a large dataset of radiology reports collected from actual hospital studies, our model outperforms existing non-neural and neural baselines under the ROUGE metrics.In a blind experiment, a board-certified radiologist indicated that 67% of sampled system summaries are at least as good as the corresponding humanwritten summaries, suggesting significant clinical validity.To our knowledge our work represents the first attempt in this direction.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/w18-5623

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Singh et al. (2019) used GloVe and RadGloVe word-embedding databases to train the LSTM and used BLEU, METEOR, CIDER, and ROUGE metrics.

    “They used word-embedding databases Global Vectors (GloVe) (Pennington et al. (2014)) and the radiology variant RadGloVe (Zhang et al. (2018)) to train the LSTM, and used the aforementioned BLEU metric as well as variants METEOR, CIDER, and ROUGE (Banerjee and Lavie (2005); Lin (2004); Vedantam et al. (2015)).”
  • Most authors focused on summarization of radiology reports, i.e., on the creation of a shorter version that includes all important aspects at the same level of text complexity.

    “So far, most authors focused on summarization of radiology reports, i.e., on the creation of a shorter version that includes all important aspects at the same level of text complexity [23–26].”

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Günes Erkan and Dragomir R Radev. 2004. LexRank: Graph-based lexical centrality as salience in text summarization. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 22:457-479.
  2. Stephen Merity, Caiming Xiong, James Bradbury, and Richard Socher. 2017. Pointer sentinel mixture models. The 2017 International Conference on Learning Representations.
  3. Ramesh Nallapati, Bowen Zhou, Caglar Gulcehre, Bing Xiang, et al. 2016. Abstractive text summa- rization using sequence-to-sequence RNNs and be- yond. The SIGNLL Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), 2016.
  4. Josef Steinberger and Karel Jezek. 2004. Using latent semantic analysis in text summarization and sum- mary evaluation. Proceedings of the 2004 Interna- tional Conference on Information System Implemen- tation and Modeling.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, Y., Ding, D. Y., Qian, T., Manning, C. D., & Langlotz, C. P.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Health Text Mining and Information Analysis
Published
2018
Pages
204-213
OpenAlex
W2891022667
Cited by
126
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 2
FWCI
3.54
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • International Workshop on Health Text Mining and Information Analysis (LOUHI) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
radiology report summarization, sequence-to-sequence learning, clinical text summarization, ROUGE evaluation

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