Learning to Summarize Radiology Findings
Open accessAbstract
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 human-written summaries, suggesting significant clinical validity. To our knowledge our work represents the first attempt in this direction.
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
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.
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].”
From An overview of deep learning in medical imaging focusing on MRI (2019) · cites this paper as [317]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
An overview of deep learning in medical imaging focusing on MRI
Lundervold, A. S., & Lundervold, A. (2019) · Zeitschrift für Medizinische Physik · doi:10.1016/j.zemedi.2018.11.002 · Cited by 2,058 · see citing works
Ouis, M. Y., & Akhloufi, M. A. (2024) · Frontiers in Imaging · doi:10.3389/fimag.2024.1373420 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Fine-tuning BERT Models for Summarizing German Radiology Findings
Liang, S., Kades, K., Fink, M., Full, P., Weber, T., Kleesiek, J., Strube, M., & Maier-Hein, K. (2022) · Proceedings of the 4th Clinical Natural Language Processing Workshop · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.clinicalnlp-1.4 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
- Authors
- Zhang, Y., Ding, D. Y., Qian, T., Manning, C. D., & Langlotz, C. P.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2018
- Pages
- 204-213
- arXiv
- 1809.04698
- OpenAlex
- W2891022667
- Cited by
- 126
- References
- 0
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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