Pith. sign in

REVIEW

VisualCheXbert: Addressing the Discrepancy Between Radiology Report Labels and Image Labels

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2102.11467 v2 pith:MZQWWYKM submitted 2021-02-23 eess.IV cs.CVcs.LG

VisualCheXbert: Addressing the Discrepancy Between Radiology Report Labels and Image Labels

classification eess.IV cs.CVcs.LG
keywords labelsradiologyimageslabelingradiologistsmedicalreportreports
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Automatic extraction of medical conditions from free-text radiology reports is critical for supervising computer vision models to interpret medical images. In this work, we show that radiologists labeling reports significantly disagree with radiologists labeling corresponding chest X-ray images, which reduces the quality of report labels as proxies for image labels. We develop and evaluate methods to produce labels from radiology reports that have better agreement with radiologists labeling images. Our best performing method, called VisualCheXbert, uses a biomedically-pretrained BERT model to directly map from a radiology report to the image labels, with a supervisory signal determined by a computer vision model trained to detect medical conditions from chest X-ray images. We find that VisualCheXbert outperforms an approach using an existing radiology report labeler by an average F1 score of 0.14 (95% CI 0.12, 0.17). We also find that VisualCheXbert better agrees with radiologists labeling chest X-ray images than do radiologists labeling the corresponding radiology reports by an average F1 score across several medical conditions of between 0.12 (95% CI 0.09, 0.15) and 0.21 (95% CI 0.18, 0.24).

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.