Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Quantitative Analysis of Uncertainty in Medical Reporting: Creating a Standardized and Objective Methodology

  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Uncertainty in text-based medical reports has long been recognized as problematic, frequently resulting in misunderstanding and miscommunication. One strategy for addressing the negative clinical ramifications of report uncertainty would be the creation of a standardized methodology for characterizing and quantifying uncertainty language, which could provide both the report author and reader with context related to the perceived level of diagnostic confidence and accuracy. A number of computerized strategies could be employed in the creation of this analysis including string search, natural language processing and understanding, histogram analysis, topic modeling, and machine learning. The derived uncertainty data offers the potential to objectively analyze report uncertainty in real time and correlate with outcomes analysis for the purpose of context and user-specific decision support at the point of care, where intervention would have the greatest clinical impact.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Luther VP, Crandall SJ: Ambiguity and uncertainty: neglected elements of medical education curricula? Acad Med 86:799–800, 2011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Reiner B: Uncovering and improving upon the inherent deficiencies of radiology reporting through data mining. J Digit Imaging 23:109–118, 2010

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Lindley SW, Gillies EM, Hassell LA: Communicating diagnostic uncertainty in surgical reports: disparities between sender and receiver. Pathol Res Pract 210:628–633, 2014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Reiner B, Siegel E, Protopapas Z et al.: Impact of filmless radiology on the frequency of clinician consultations with radiologists. AJR 173:1169–1172, 1999

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Reiner BI: Strategies for radiology reporting and communication. Part 1: challenges and heightened expectations. J Digit Imaging 26:610–613, 2013

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Khorasani R, Bates DW, Teeger S et al.: is terminology used effectively to convey diagnostic certainty in radiology reports? Acad Radiol 10:685–688, 2003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Reiner B: A Crisis in confidence: A combined challenge and opportunity for medical imaging providers. J Am Coll Radiol 2: 107-108, 2014

  8. Hanauer DA, Liu Y, Mei Q et al.: Hedging their mets: the use of uncertainty terms in clinical documents and its potential implications when sharing the documents with patients. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2012:321–330, 2012

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. White GH, Farrance I: Uncertainty of measurement in quantitative medical testing: A laboratory guide. Clin Biochem Rev 25:S1–S24, 2004

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. ISO: Geneva, 1995. ISBN 92-67-10188-9

  11. Pons E, Braun LMM, Hunink MGM et al.: Natural language processing in radiology: a systematic review. Radiology 279:329–343, 2016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cai T, Giannopoulous AA, Yu S et al.: Natural language processing techniques in radiology research and clinical applications. RadioGraphics 36:176–191, 2016

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Savova GK, Masanz JJ, Ogren PV et al.: Mayo clinical text analysis and knowledge extraction system (cTAKES): architecture, component evaluation, and applications. J Am Med Inform Assoc 17:507–513, 2010

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Meystre SM, Sakova GK, Kipper-Schuler KC et al.: Extracting information from textual documents in the electronic health record: a review of recent research. IMIA Yearbook of Medical Informatics 47:128–144, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chau M, Chen H: A machine learning approach to web page filtering using context and structure analysis. Decision Support Systems 44:482–494, 2008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Blei D, Ng A, Jordan M: Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research 3:993–1022, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  17. Huang A, Lehavy R, Zang A, et al: Analyst information discovery and interpretation roles: A topic modeling approach. Manag Sci, 2017 doi:10.1287/mnsc.2017.2751

  18. Hsieh CH, Lu RH, Lee NH et al.: Novel solutions for an old disease: diagnosis of acute appendicitis with random forest, support vector machines, and artificial neural networks. Surgery 149:87–93, 2011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Veterans Affairs Maryland Healthcare System, 10 North Greene Street, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA

    Bruce I. Reiner

Authors
  1. Bruce I. Reiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruce I. Reiner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reiner, B.I. Quantitative Analysis of Uncertainty in Medical Reporting: Creating a Standardized and Objective Methodology. J Digit Imaging 31, 145–149 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-017-0041-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-017-0041-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation