Caveats in Generating Medical Imaging Labels from Radiology Reports

05/06/2019 ∙ by Tobi Olatunji, et al. ∙ Enlitic, Inc. 0

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.



There are no comments yet.


page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4

This week in AI

Get the week's most popular data science and artificial intelligence research sent straight to your inbox every Saturday.

1 Introduction

Modern machine leaning models in medical imaging requires large amount of high-quality training data. Unlike others, medical imaging labels are typically given in the format of free-text radiology reports that summarize findings and recommend follow-ups. In order to enable supervised learning, one extra step is needed to convert reports to discrete sets of labels – a process that may be automated by NLP. In fact, healthcare organizations and academic institutions who produce and possess medical data have begun to address this labeling issue by bootstrapping the image annotation process using Clinical NLP

(Wang et al., 2017). This approach holds immense promise. For instance, publicly released datasets amount to hundreds of thousands of labelled studies (Irvin et al., 2019; Bustos et al., 2019)

, starting a new wave of machine learning models trained with richer examples.

Although convenient and highly scalable, automated processes typically come with their own limitations that directly influence the quality of the trained models, which in turn impact downstream patient outcome. Unlike other work that focuses on improving NLP model performance, we trace the problem of labeling noise and inconsistency to its source. We experimentally demonstrate the fundamental discrepancy between what radiologists perceive visually in imaging exams and what they choose to clinically report. We highlight the fact that most of the discrepancy is due to the concept of clinically non-actionable findings, which are often excluded in the deliverable of radiologists’ workflow.

In particular, we have curated 1,000 chest X-ray (CXR) studies from a non-screening setting, the majority of which contain at least one abnormal finding based on their reports. For each study, two sets of labels are generated by radiologists. One is based solely on viewing images (denoted as ), and the other is based only on viewing reports (denoted as ). Preliminary analysis shows a high disagreement rate between the two. Furthermore, the state-of-art medical NLP (denoted as ) produces further disagreement to .

Related work

Raykar et al. (2009) addresses the problem of multiple annotators providing noisy labels. Irvin et al. (2019) evaluates against 1,000 manually labeled reports, then compares NLP extracted mentions, negations, and uncertainty labels to NIH Labeler (Peng et al., 2018). Hassanpour and Langlotz (2016) usees a set of 150 manually labeled reports as a validation set to compare performance between rule-based and machine learning methods. In their work on head CT reports (Zech et al., 2018), 1,004 manually labelled reports are used to evaluate NLP performance. A similar approach is taken by Sevenster et al. (2015). Unlike previous work, we aim to highlight the limitation of report-based annotation by using CXR studies, an imaging modality that is known to lack of specificity. Due to its challenging nature, even report labels from radiologists fall short, let alone those of NLP.

2 Experiments


We curated a set of 1,000 chest X-ray studies, the majority of which have at least one finding based on the report text for review by two groups of expert radiologists. Group 1 reviewed images while Group 2 reviewed reports, indicating presence or absence of 4 categories of abnormalities– Global Abnormal (), Cardiomegaly (), Consolidation () and Foreign Body or Medical Device (). We also compared automated label extraction on the reports using the state-of-the-art NLP (Irvin et al., 2019). Results are shown in tab:manualextraction below.



Table 1: Overall performance benchmark of report labels against image labels, and NLP labels against report labels by abnormality.
Num. of findings 728 121 143 186
Num. of findings 683 37 257 81
Precision w.r.t. 0.72 0.35 0.36 0.98
Recall w.r.t. 0.67 0.11 0.63 0.43
F1 w.r.t. 0.69 0.17 0.45 0.59
Num. of findings 726 240 291 131
Precision w.r.t. 0.81 0.13 0.59 0.24
Recall w.r.t. 0.86 0.86 0.67 0.38
F1 w.r.t. 0.83 0.23 0.63 0.29

Agreement (F1-score) between image and report findings is highest on the Global Abnormal label () (69%). Given this discrepancy, NLP reaches only 83% agreement with report findings on the Global Abnormal label. Findings extracted by NLP therefore represent 55.6% of image findings (typically considered as the gold standard). The gap is apparently wider for other findings. We provide some insights on the failure cases below.

Failure analysis

Of the 1000 studies in this analysis, 239 reports (24%) were labeled as normal, disagreeing with image annotations. In 194 reports (20%) labeled abnormal, image review found no abnormality. Two expert radiologists reviewed selected cases from both sets. We summarize the insights in the analysis below.


Figure 1: Technical issues and anatomic variations obscure findings

Non-actionable findings

In the overwhelming majority of disagreement, the reporting radiologist documents only findings relevant to the immediate clinical context (indication for ordering the study), and ignores non-actionable findings such as evidence of ongoing treatment (medical devices, leads, staples, catheters), unchanged findings (since previous study), age-related findings (in the elderly) such as spinal degenerative disease, spine arthritis, anterolateral osteophytes, aorta ectasia, calcifications, or curvature of the spine that do not contribute to primary pulmonary parenchymal pathology. The labeling radiologist however identifies such findings to provide consistent annotation for model training.

Borderline or nuanced findings

As seen in fig:nonactionable, subtle findings demonstrate the low specificity of X-ray as a modality, leading to uncertainty and disagreement. Another clear example is Borderline cardiomegaly which results in the typical case of half-full vs half-empty where the labeling radiologist leans towards ignoring the finding, but the reporting radiologist might err on the side of caution, preferring to mention such findings with caveats.

Anatomic variations

Features such as barrel chest (pectus carinatum), skinny or obese patients, fat pads, nipple shadows, breast tissue density, superimposition of structures like ribs, cardiac shadow, create further ambiguity that result in suspicion of abnormality.

Technical issues

Other factors like patient positioning, inspiratory effort, image acquistion issues, clothing, nipple rings, medical devices, extrinsic or intrinsic foreign bodies influence the quality of report interpretation. They mask or exaggerate findings resulting in interpretation disagreement.

Outright error

In rare cases, reporting or labeling radiologists missed findings which the other picked up, or provided wrong interpretations to visual patterns. Such obvious errors (usually as a result of fatigue) strengthen the resolve to improve the performance of AI-assistsed radiology for patient care.


  • Bustos et al. (2019) Aurelia Bustos, Antonio Pertusa, Jose-Maria Salinas, and Maria de la Iglesia-Vayá. Padchest: A large chest x-ray image dataset with multi-label annotated reports. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.07441, 2019.
  • Hassanpour and Langlotz (2016) Saeed Hassanpour and Curtis P Langlotz. Information extraction from multi-institutional radiology reports. Artificial intelligence in medicine, 66:29–39, 2016.
  • Irvin et al. (2019) Jeremy Irvin, Pranav Rajpurkar, Michael Ko, Yifan Yu, Silviana Ciurea-Ilcus, Chris Chute, Henrik Marklund, Behzad Haghgoo, Robyn Ball, Katie Shpanskaya, et al. Chexpert: A large chest radiograph dataset with uncertainty labels and expert comparison. In Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2019.
  • Peng et al. (2018) Yifan Peng, Xiaosong Wang, Le Lu, Mohammadhadi Bagheri, Ronald Summers, and Zhiyong Lu. Negbio: a high-performance tool for negation and uncertainty detection in radiology reports. AMIA Summits on Translational Science Proceedings, 2017:188, 2018.
  • Raykar et al. (2009) Vikas C Raykar, Shipeng Yu, Linda H Zhao, Anna Jerebko, Charles Florin, Gerardo Hermosillo Valadez, Luca Bogoni, and Linda Moy. Supervised learning from multiple experts: whom to trust when everyone lies a bit. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual international conference on machine learning, pages 889–896. ACM, 2009.
  • Sevenster et al. (2015) M Sevenster, J Buurman, P Liu, JF Peters, and PJ Chang. Natural language processing techniques for extracting and categorizing finding measurements in narrative radiology reports. Applied clinical informatics, 6(03):600–610, 2015.
  • Wang et al. (2017) Xiaosong Wang, Yifan Peng, Le Lu, Zhiyong Lu, Mohammadhadi Bagheri, and Ronald M. Summers. Chestx-ray8: Hospital-scale chest x-ray database and benchmarks on weakly-supervised classification and localization of common thorax diseases.

    2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    , 2017.
    doi: 10.1109/cvpr.2017.369.
  • Zech et al. (2018) John Zech, Margaret Pain, Joseph Titano, Marcus Badgeley, Javin Schefflein, Andres Su, Anthony Costa, Joshua Bederson, Joseph Lehar, and Eric Karl Oermann. Natural language–based machine learning models for the annotation of clinical radiology reports. Radiology, 287(2):570–580, 2018.