Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Sep;82(3):512-9.
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.01.049. Epub 2015 Apr 22.

Natural language processing as an alternative to manual reporting of colonoscopy quality metrics

Gottumukkala S Raju  1 , Phillip J Lum  1 , Rebecca S Slack  2 , Selvi Thirumurthi  1 , Patrick M Lynch  1 , Ethan Miller  1 , Brian R Weston  1 , Marta L Davila  1 , Manoop S Bhutani  1 , Mehnaz A Shafi  1 , Robert S Bresalier  1 , Alexander A Dekovich  1 , Jeffrey H Lee  1 , Sushovan Guha  1 , Mala Pande  1 , Boris Blechacz  1 , Asif Rashid  3 , Mark Routbort  4 , Gladis Shuttlesworth  1 , Lopa Mishra  1 , John R Stroehlein  1 , William A Ross  1
Affiliations

Natural language processing as an alternative to manual reporting of colonoscopy quality metrics

Gottumukkala S Raju et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Sep.

Abstract

Background and aims: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality metric tied to interval colon cancer occurrence. However, manual extraction of data to calculate and track the ADR in clinical practice is labor-intensive. To overcome this difficulty, we developed a natural language processing (NLP) method to identify adenomas and sessile serrated adenomas (SSAs) in patients undergoing their first screening colonoscopy. We compared the NLP-generated results with that of manual data extraction to test the accuracy of NLP and report on colonoscopy quality metrics using NLP.

Methods: Identification of screening colonoscopies using NLP was compared with that using the manual method for 12,748 patients who underwent colonoscopies from July 2010 to February 2013. Also, identification of adenomas and SSAs using NLP was compared with that using the manual method with 2259 matched patient records. Colonoscopy ADRs using these methods were generated for each physician.

Results: NLP correctly identified 91.3% of the screening examinations, whereas the manual method identified 87.8% of them. Both the manual method and NLP correctly identified examinations of patients with adenomas and SSAs in the matched records almost perfectly. Both NLP and the manual method produced comparable values for ADRs for each endoscopist and for the group as a whole.

Conclusions: NLP can correctly identify screening colonoscopies, accurately identify adenomas and SSAs in a pathology database, and provide real-time quality metrics for colonoscopy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Architecture of the computer application for ADR reporting (CAADRR).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Colonoscopy quality: metrics and implementation. Gasteroenterol Clin North Am. 2013;42:599–618. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1298–1306. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Raju GS, Vadyala V, Slack R, et al. Adenoma detection in patients undergoing a comprehensive colonoscopy screening. Cancer Med. 2013;2:391–402. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ross WA, Thirumurthi S, Lynch PM, et al. Detection rates of premalignant polyps during screening colonoscopy: time to revise quality standards? Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 accepted for publication. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Seeff LC, Richards TB, Shapiro JA, et al. How many endoscopies are performed for colorectal cancer screening? Results from CDC's survey of endoscopic capacity. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:1670–1677. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources