An Architecture to Support Ultrasound Report Generation and Standardisation

Nur Zareen Zulkarnain, Gillian Crofts, Farid Meziane

2015

Abstract

Ultrasound reports are developed in different ways by clinicians and radiologists. These variations in reporting style, content and format could impact on the value of the report and the way it is interpreted, which in turn have implications on patient management and decision making. There are many reasons for the poor success rate of some reporting systems which is usually down to poor adaptability and the main one being the human factor. In this paper, we present a system architecture model for a proposed medical ultrasound reporting system that attempt to address some of these problems. In this system, we propose a solution where humans will not need to adapt to the system, instead the system acknowledge the various styles, contents and format being produced by the humans and uses an ontology to standardise the terminology and Natural Language Processing techniques to transform free text reports to the preferred proposed model of a structured and standardised report.

References

  1. Bell, D. S., & Greenes, R. a. (1994). Evaluation of UltraSTAR: performance of a collaborative structured data entry system. Proceedings / the ... Annual Symposium on Computer Application [sic] in Medical Care. Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, 216-22. Retrieved from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?a rtid=2247858&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract.
  2. Bell, D. S., Greenes, R. a, & Doubilet, P. (1992). Formbased clinical input from a structured vocabulary: initial application in ultrasound reporting. Proceedings / the ... Annual Symposium on Computer Application [sic] in Medical Care. Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, 789-90.
  3. Boland, G. (2007). Enhancing the radiology product: the value of voice-recognition technology. Clinical Radiology, 62(11), 1127. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2007.05.014.
  4. Bontcheva, K., & Wilks, Y. (2004). Automatic report generation from ontologies: the MIAKT approach. Natural Language Processing and Information …, (Section 2).
  5. Bosmans, J. M. L., Peremans, L., Menni, M., De Schepper, a M., Duyck, P. O., & Parizel, P. M. (2012). Structured reporting: if, why, when, how-and at what expense? Results of a focus group meeting of radiology professionals from eight countries. Insights into Imaging, 3(3), 295-302. doi:10.1007/s13244-012- 0148-1.
  6. Danton, G. H. (2010). Radiology Reporting, Changes Worth Making Are Never Easy. Applied Radiology, 5(May), 19-23. Retrieved from http://www.appliedradiology.com/Issues/2010/05/Arti cles/Radiology-Reporting,-Changes-Worth-MakingAre-Never-Easy.aspx.
  7. Johnson, A. J., Chen, M. Y. M., Swan, J. S., Applegate, K. E., & Littenberg, B. (2009). Cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation. Radiology, 253(1), 74-80. doi:10.1148/radiol.2531090138.
  8. Kahn, C. E., Langlotz, C. P., Burnside, E. S., Carrino, J. A., Channin, D. S., Hovsepian, D. M., & Rubin, D. L. (2009). Toward best practices in radiology reporting. Radiology, 252(3), 852-6. doi:10.1148/radiol.2523081992.
  9. Kahn, C. E., Wang, K., & Bell, D. S. (1996). Structured entry of radiology reports using World Wide Web technology. Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc, 16(3), 683-91. doi:10.1148/radiographics.16.3.8897632.
  10. Kuhn, K., Zemmler, T., Reichert, M., Heinlein, C., & Roesner, D. (1993). Structured data collection and knowledge-based user guidance for abdominal ultrasound reporting. Proceedings / the ... Annual Symposium on Computer Application [sic] in Medical Care. Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, (311), 311-5.
  11. Langlotz, C. P. (2009). Structured radiology reporting: are we there yet? Radiology, 253(1), 23-5. doi:10.1148/radiol.2531091088.
  12. Marwede, D., Fielding, M., & Kahn, T. (2007). RadiO: a prototype application ontology for radiology reporting tasks. AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings / AMIA Symposium. AMIA Symposium, 513-517.
  13. Naik SS, Hanbidge A, Wilson SR (2001) Radiology reports: examining radiologist and clinician preferences regarding style and content. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:591-598.
  14. Noy, N., & McGuinness, D. (2001). Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology, 1-25.
  15. Overton, J., Romagnoli, C., & Chhem, R. (2011). Open Biomedical Ontologies applied to prostate cancer. Applied Ontology, 6, 35-51.
  16. Plumb, a a O., Grieve, F. M., & Khan, S. H. (2009). Survey of hospital clinicians' preferences regarding the format of radiology reports. Clinical radiology, 64(4), 386-94; 395-6. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2008.11.009.
  17. Rubin, D. L. (2008). Creating and curating a terminology for radiology: ontology modeling and analysis. Journal of digital imaging, 21(4), 355-62. doi:10.1007/s10278-007-9073-0.
  18. Schwartz, L. H., Panicek, D. M., Berk, A. R., Li, Y., & Hricak, H. (2011). Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting. Radiology, 260(1), 174-81. doi:10.1148/radiol.11101913.
  19. Sluis, D., Lee, K., & Mankovich, N. (2002). DICOM SRIntegrating structured data into clinical information systems. Medicamundi, (August), 31-36.
  20. Smith, B. (2003). Ontology: philosophical and computational. In Floridi L (Ed.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
  21. United Kingdom Association of Sonographers (UKAS) (2008). Guidelines for Professional Working Standards-Ultrasound Practice. P45-51.
  22. Weiss, D. L., & Langlotz, C. P. (2008). Structured reporting: patient care enhancement or productivity nightmare? Radiology, 249(3), 739-47. doi:10.1148/radiol.2493080988.
  23. William, M., & Thompson, S. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Towards a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(1988).
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Zulkarnain N., Crofts G. and Meziane F. (2015). An Architecture to Support Ultrasound Report Generation and Standardisation . In Proceedings of the International Conference on Health Informatics - Volume 1: HEALTHINF, (BIOSTEC 2015) ISBN 978-989-758-068-0, pages 508-513. DOI: 10.5220/0005252505080513


in Bibtex Style

@conference{healthinf15,
author={Nur Zareen Zulkarnain and Gillian Crofts and Farid Meziane},
title={An Architecture to Support Ultrasound Report Generation and Standardisation },
booktitle={Proceedings of the International Conference on Health Informatics - Volume 1: HEALTHINF, (BIOSTEC 2015)},
year={2015},
pages={508-513},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0005252505080513},
isbn={978-989-758-068-0},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the International Conference on Health Informatics - Volume 1: HEALTHINF, (BIOSTEC 2015)
TI - An Architecture to Support Ultrasound Report Generation and Standardisation
SN - 978-989-758-068-0
AU - Zulkarnain N.
AU - Crofts G.
AU - Meziane F.
PY - 2015
SP - 508
EP - 513
DO - 10.5220/0005252505080513