Natural Language Processing for Classification of Acute, Communicable Findings on Unstructured Head CT Reports: Comparison of Neural Network and Non-Neural Machine Learning Techniques
Falgun H. ChokshiiD, Bonggun ShiniD, Timothy LeeiD, Andrew LemmoniD, Sean NecessaryiD, Jinho D. ChoiiD
Abstract
Background and PurposeTo evaluate the accuracy of non-neural and neural network models to classify five categories (classes) of acute and communicable findings on unstructured head computed tomography (CT) reports.\n\nMaterials and MethodsThree radiologists annotated 1,400 head CT reports for language indicating the presence or absence of acute communicable findings (hemorrhage, stroke, hydrocephalus, and mass effect). This set was used to train, develop, and evaluate a non-neural classifier, support vector machine (SVM), in comparisons to two neural network models using convolutional neural networks (CNN) and neural attention model (NAM) Inter-rater agreement was computed using kappa statistics. Accuracy, receiver operated curves, and area under the curve were calculated and tabulated. P-values < 0.05 was significant and 95% confidence intervals were computed.\n\nResultsRadiologist agreement was 86-94% and Cohens kappa was 0.667-0.762 (substantial agreement). Accuracies of the CNN and NAM (range 0.90-0.94) were higher than SVM (range 0.88-0.92). NAM showed relatively equal accuracy with CNN for three classes, severity, mass effect, and hydrocephalus, higher accuracy for the acute bleed class, and lower accuracy for the acute stroke class. AUCs of all methods for all classes were above 0.92.\n\nConclusionsO_LINeural network models (CNN & NAM) generally had higher accuracies compared to the non-neural models (SVM) and have a range of accuracies that comparable to the inter-annotator agreement of three neuroradiologists.\nC_LIO_LIThe NAM method adds ability to hold the algorithm accountable for its classification via heat map generation, thereby adding an auditing feature to this neural network.\nC_LI\n\nAbbreviations
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 3
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Beyond accuracy: Measures for assessing machine learning models, pitfalls and guidelines
Richard Dinga, Brenda W.J.H. Penninx, … André F. Marquand·bioRxiv·Aug 22, 2019
- Decoding fMRI Data: A Comparison Between Support Vector Machines and Deep Neural Networks
Yun Liang, Ke Bo, … Mingzhou Ding·bioRxiv·May 30, 2023
- Machine Learning Matches Human Performance at Segmenting the Human Visual Cortex
Noah Charles Benson, Bogeng Song, … Jonathan A. Winawer·bioRxiv·May 16, 2025
- Deep Learning Achieves Neuroradiologist-Level Performance in Detecting Hydrocephalus Requiring Treatment
Yu Huang, Raquel Moreno, … Robert J. Young·Journal of Imaging Informatics in MedicinePeer-reviewed·May 17, 2022
- EEG-based classification models reveal differential neural processing of words and images
Neda R. Morakabati, Alison S Thiha, Eitan Schechtman·Journal of Neuroscience MethodsPeer-reviewed·Aug 13, 2026
- Empirically identifying and computationally modelling the brain-behaviour relationship for human scene categorization
Agnessa Karapetian, Antoniya Boyanova, … Radoslaw Martin Cichy·Journal of Cognitive NeurosciencePeer-reviewed·Jan 1, 2023