Utilizing Longitudinal Chest X-Rays and Reports to Pre-Fill Radiology Reports
Open accessAbstract
Despite the reduction in turn-around times in radiology reports with the use of speech recognition software, persistent communication errors can significantly impact the interpretation of the radiology report. Pre-filling a radiology report holds promise in mitigating reporting errors, and despite efforts in the literature to generate medical reports, there exists a lack of approaches that exploit the longitudinal nature of patient visit records in the MIMIC-CXR dataset. To address this gap, we propose to use longitudinal multi-modal data, i.e., previous patient visit CXR, current visit CXR, and previous visit report, to pre-fill the 'findings' section of a current patient visit report. We first gathered the longitudinal visit information for 26,625 patients from the MIMIC-CXR dataset and created a new dataset called Longitudinal-MIMIC. With this new dataset, a transformer-based model was trained to capture the information from longitudinal patient visit records containing multi-modal data (CXR images + reports) via a cross-attention-based multi-modal fusion module and a hierarchical memory-driven decoder. In contrast to previous work that only uses current visit data as input to train a model, our work exploits the longitudinal information available to pre-fill the 'findings' section of radiology reports. Experiments show that our approach outperforms several recent approaches. Code will be published at https://github.com/CelestialShine/Longitudinal-Chest-X-Ray.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The paper's qualitative evaluation approach differs from most existing works that primarily ask experts to rate overall report quality via a Likert scale, provide total error counts/categorisation, or engage in comparison rankings.
“By inviting a domain expert to review and adapt individual phrase outputs, our approach to qualitative evaluation of report generation differs from most existing works that primarily ask experts to rate overall report quality via a (Likert-) scale; 59 provide total error counts/ categorisation; 48,60 or engage in comparison rankings across different report candidates.61”
From MAIRA-2: Grounded Radiology Report Generation (2024) · cites this paper as [61]
The involvement of human domain experts as (qualitative) annotators is widely considered as effortful and costly and as less flexible or scalable for iterative model testing.
“The involvement of human domain experts as (qualitative) annotators is widely considered as effortful and costly; 61 and as less flexible or scalable for iterative model testing.”
From MAIRA-2: Grounded Radiology Report Generation (2024) · cites this paper as [61]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
MAIRA-2: Grounded Radiology Report Generation
Bannur, S., Bouzid, K., Castro, D. C., Schwaighofer, A., Thieme, A., Bond-Taylor, S., Ilse, M., Pérez-García, F., Salvatelli, V., Sharma, H., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.04449 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
“Such references can be removed to reduce hallucinations when prior studies are not available (Ramesh et al., 2022; Chaves et al., 2024; Nguyen et al., 2023), or used in conjunction with prior images to enable descriptions of change (Bannur et al., 2023; Dalla Serra et al., 2023; Zhu et al., 2023).”
Background
- Authors
- Zhu, Q., Mathai, T. S., Mukherjee, P., Peng, Y., Summers, R. M., & Lu, Z.
- Affiliations
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lu, Zhiyong
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Volume
- 14224
- Pages
- 189-198
- ISSN
- 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2306.08749
- PMC
- PMC10947431
- OpenAlex
- W4380993851
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 9
- FWCI
- 3.85
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2145640, CAREER)
- National Institutes of Health
- U.S. National Library of Medicine (R00LM013001, R01LM014306)
- NIH Clinical Center
- 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 › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Keywords
- chest radiography, longitudinal patient records, multimodal fusion, cross-attention, transformer models, MIMIC-CXR, medical report generation
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