Scholarlink

Objective <p>This review assesses the progress of NLP in gastroenterology to date, grades the robustness of the methodology, exposes the field to a new generation of authors, and highlights opportunities for future research.</p> Design <p>Seven scholarly databases (ACM Digital Library, Arxiv, Embase, IEEE Explore, Pubmed, Scopus and Google Scholar) were searched for studies published between 2015 and 2023 that met the inclusion criteria. Studies lacking a description of appropriate validation or NLP methods were excluded, as were studies ufinavailable in English, those focused on non-gastrointestinal diseases and those that were duplicates. Two independent reviewers extracted study information, clinical/algorithm details, and relevant outcome data. Methodological quality and bias risks were appraised using a checklist of quality indicators for NLP studies.</p> Results <p>Fifty-three studies were identified utilising NLP in endoscopy, inflammatory bowel disease, gastrointestinal bleeding, liver and pancreatic disease. Colonoscopy was the focus of 21 (38.9%) studies; 13 (24.1%) focused on liver disease, 7 (13.0%) on inflammatory bowel disease, 4 (7.4%) on gastroscopy, 4 (7.4%) on pancreatic disease and 2 (3.7%) on endoscopic sedation/ERCP and gastrointestinal bleeding. Only 30 (56.6%) of the studies reported patient demographics, and only 13 (24.5%) had a low risk of validation bias. Thirty-five (66%) studies mentioned generalisability, but only 5 (9.4%) mentioned explainability or shared code/models.</p> Conclusion <p>NLP can unlock substantial clinical information from free-text notes stored in EPRs and is already being used, particularly to interpret colonoscopy and radiology reports. However, the models we have thus far lack transparency, leading to duplication, bias, and doubts about generalisability. Therefore, greater clinical engagement, collaboration, and open sharing of appropriate datasets and code are needed.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A foundation systematic review of natural language processing applied to gastroenterology & hepatology

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年2月6日

查看全文
  • Matthew Stammers,
  • Balasubramanian Ramgopal,
  • Abigail Owusu Nimako,
  • Anand Vyas,
  • Reza Nouraei,
  • Cheryl Metcalf,
  • James Batchelor,
  • Jonathan Shepherd,
  • Markus Gwiggner

摘要

Objective

This review assesses the progress of NLP in gastroenterology to date, grades the robustness of the methodology, exposes the field to a new generation of authors, and highlights opportunities for future research.

Design

Seven scholarly databases (ACM Digital Library, Arxiv, Embase, IEEE Explore, Pubmed, Scopus and Google Scholar) were searched for studies published between 2015 and 2023 that met the inclusion criteria. Studies lacking a description of appropriate validation or NLP methods were excluded, as were studies ufinavailable in English, those focused on non-gastrointestinal diseases and those that were duplicates. Two independent reviewers extracted study information, clinical/algorithm details, and relevant outcome data. Methodological quality and bias risks were appraised using a checklist of quality indicators for NLP studies.

Results

Fifty-three studies were identified utilising NLP in endoscopy, inflammatory bowel disease, gastrointestinal bleeding, liver and pancreatic disease. Colonoscopy was the focus of 21 (38.9%) studies; 13 (24.1%) focused on liver disease, 7 (13.0%) on inflammatory bowel disease, 4 (7.4%) on gastroscopy, 4 (7.4%) on pancreatic disease and 2 (3.7%) on endoscopic sedation/ERCP and gastrointestinal bleeding. Only 30 (56.6%) of the studies reported patient demographics, and only 13 (24.5%) had a low risk of validation bias. Thirty-five (66%) studies mentioned generalisability, but only 5 (9.4%) mentioned explainability or shared code/models.

Conclusion

NLP can unlock substantial clinical information from free-text notes stored in EPRs and is already being used, particularly to interpret colonoscopy and radiology reports. However, the models we have thus far lack transparency, leading to duplication, bias, and doubts about generalisability. Therefore, greater clinical engagement, collaboration, and open sharing of appropriate datasets and code are needed.