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
. 2019 Dec 30;19(1):287.
doi: 10.1186/s12911-019-1006-6.

Use of natural language processing to improve predictive models for imaging utilization in children presenting to the emergency department

Affiliations

Use of natural language processing to improve predictive models for imaging utilization in children presenting to the emergency department

Xingyu Zhang et al. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. .

Abstract

Objective: To examine the association between the medical imaging utilization and information related to patients' socioeconomic, demographic and clinical factors during the patients' ED visits; and to develop predictive models using these associated factors including natural language elements to predict the medical imaging utilization at pediatric ED.

Methods: Pediatric patients' data from the 2012-2016 United States National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey was included to build the models to predict the use of imaging in children presenting to the ED. Multivariable logistic regression models were built with structured variables such as temperature, heart rate, age, and unstructured variables such as reason for visit, free text nursing notes and combined data available at triage. NLP techniques were used to extract information from the unstructured data.

Results: Of the 27,665 pediatric ED visits included in the study, 8394 (30.3%) received medical imaging in the ED, including 6922 (25.0%) who had an X-ray and 1367 (4.9%) who had a computed tomography (CT) scan. In the predictive model including only structured variables, the c-statistic was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.70-0.71) for any imaging use, 0.69 (95% CI: 0.68-0.70) for X-ray, and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.76-0.78) for CT. Models including only unstructured information had c-statistics of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.81-0.82) for any imaging use, 0.82 (95% CI: 0.82-0.83) for X-ray, and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.83-0.86) for CT scans. When both structured variables and free text variables were included, the c-statistics reached 0.82 (95% CI: 0.82-0.83) for any imaging use, 0.83 (95% CI: 0.83-0.84) for X-ray, and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.86-0.88) for CT.

Conclusions: Both CT and X-rays are commonly used in the pediatric ED with one third of the visits receiving at least one. Patients' socioeconomic, demographic and clinical factors presented at ED triage period were associated with the medical imaging utilization. Predictive models combining structured and unstructured variables available at triage performed better than models using structured or unstructured variables alone, suggesting the potential for use of NLP in determining resource utilization.

Keywords: Medical imaging utilization; Natural language processing; Pediatric emergency department; Predictive model.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Frequency and the word cloud of the word and word pairs in the unstructured variables (the first figure shows the words that appear over 1500 times, the second shows the words that appear over 20 times)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
ROC curves for the logistic regression models for medical imaging use (The red point on each ROC curve minimizes the Euclidean distance between the ROC curve and the upper left corner of the coordinate, which is defined as the best cutoff in the study)

References

    1. Horwitz LI, Green J, Bradley EH. US emergency department performance on wait time and length of visit. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;55(2):133–141. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.07.023. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kovacs G, Croskerry P. Clinical decision making: an emergency medicine perspective. Acad Emerg Med. 1999;6(9):947–952. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1999.tb01246.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Patel M, Maconochie I. Triage in children. Trauma. 2008;10(4):239–245. doi: 10.1177/1460408608096795. - DOI
    1. Baumann MR, Strout TD. Evaluation of the emergency severity index (version 3) triage algorithm in pediatric patients. Acad Emerg Med. 2005;12(3):219–224. doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2004.09.023. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Aeimchanbanjong K, Pandee U. Validation of different pediatric triage systems in the emergency department. World J Emerg Med. 2017;8(3):223. doi: 10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2017.03.010. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types