{"id":"arxiv:1905.02283","kind":"preprint","title":"Caveats in Generating Medical Imaging Labels from Radiology Reports","authors":["Tobi Olatunji","Li Yao","Ben Covington","Alexander Rhodes","Anthony Upton"],"author_count":5,"year":2019,"published":"2019-05-06","venue":null,"cited_by":9,"doi":null,"arxiv_id":"1905.02283","nct_id":null,"source_url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.02283","archive_url":"https://space-kitty.com/papers/arxiv:1905.02283","updated":"2019-05-06","pmid":null,"pmcid":null,"openalex_id":"W2944162425","pdf_url":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.02283","abstract":"Acquiring high-quality annotations in medical imaging is usually a costly process. Automatic label extraction with natural language processing (NLP) has emerged as a promising workaround to bypass the need of expert annotation. Despite the convenience, the limitation of such an approximation has not been carefully examined and is not well understood. With a challenging set of 1,000 chest X-ray studies and their corresponding radiology reports, we show that there exists a surprisingly large discrepancy between what radiologists visually perceive and what they clinically report. Furthermore, with inherently flawed report as ground truth, the state-of-the-art medical NLP fails to produce high-fidelity labels.","abstract_license":"CC0-1.0 (arXiv descriptive metadata)","license":null,"is_open_access":false,"retracted":false,"peer_reviewed":false,"categories":["cs.CL","cs.CV","eess.IV"],"details":null,"provenance":"arxiv","attribution":"Abstract: arXiv descriptive metadata (CC0). Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. This service was not reviewed or approved by, nor does it necessarily express or reflect the policies or opinions of, arXiv.","topics":[{"slug":"ai-medicine","name":"AI in Clinical Medicine","domain_slug":"medicine"}],"cited_in_dossiers":[]}