Abstract
Accurately assessing the severity of pulmonary edema is critical for making treatment decisions in congestive heart failure patients. However, the current scale for quantifying pulmonary edema based on chest radiographs does not have well-characterized severity levels, with substantial inter-radiologist disagreement. In this study, we investigate whether comparisons documented in radiology reports can provide accurate characterizations of pulmonary edema progression. We propose a rules-based natural language processing approach to assess the change in a patient’s pulmonary edema status (e.g. better, worse, no change) by performing pairwise comparisons of consecutive radiology reports, using regular expressions and heuristics derived from clinical knowledge. Evaluated against ground-truth labels from expert radiologists, our labeler extracts comparisons describing the progression of pulmonary edema with 0.875 precision and 0.891 recall. We also demonstrate the potential utility of comparison labels in providing additional fine-grained information over noisier labels produced by models that directly estimate severity level.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Advanced Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (SuperUROP).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study involves only openly available patient data that has been de-identified, which can be obtained from https://physionet.org/content/mimic-cxr/2.0.0/.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
