1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Development and Validation of a Natural Language Processing Tool to Generate the CONSORT Reporting Checklist for Randomized Clinical Trials

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          Can natural language processing tools generate a Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting checklist automatically for manuscripts of randomized clinical trials?

          Findings

          An automated reporting checklist generation tool using natural language processing, CONSORT-NLP, was developed using 158 articles reporting randomized clinical trials; CONSORT-NLP performed well in the validation set evaluation of fully implemented reporting items (28 of 30 items [93%] achieved >90% accuracy, and the remaining 2 of 30 [7%] achieved between 80% and 90% accuracy) and requires on average 23 seconds to complete (human: 11.9-57.6 minutes).

          Meaning

          Authors who plan to publish a randomized clinical trial with the CONSORT checklist may save substantial time by using CONSORT-NLP because this tool is an aid in completing the CONSORT checklist.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials ( CONSORT) for randomized clinical trials is associated with improvingquality because inadequate reporting in randomized clinical trials may complicate the interpretation and the application of findings to clinical care.

          Objective

          To evaluate an automated reporting checklist generation tool that uses natural language processing (NLP), called CONSORT-NLP.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This study used published journal articles as training, testing, and validation sets to develop, refine, and evaluate the CONSORT-NLP tool. Articles reporting randomized clinical trials were selected from 25 high-impact-factor journals under the following categories: (1) general and internal medicine, (2) oncology, and (3) cardiac and cardiovascular systems.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          For an evaluation of the performance of this tool, an accuracy metric defined as the number of correct assessments divided by all assessments was calculated.

          Results

          The CONSORT-NLP tool uses the widely used Portable Document Format as an input file. Of the 37 CONSORT reporting items, 34 (92%) were included in the tool. Of these 34 reporting items, 30 were fully implemented; 28 (93%) of the fully implemented CONSORT reporting items had an accuracy of more than 90% for the validation set. The remaining 2 (7%) had an accuracy between 80% and 90% for the validation set. Two to 5 articles were selected from each of these journals for a total of 158 articles to establish a training set of 111 articles to train CONSORT-NLP for CONSORT reporting items, a testing set of 25 articles to refine CONSORT-NLP, and a validation set of 22 articles to assess the performance of CONSORT-NLP. The CONSORT-NLP tool used the Portable Document Format of the articles as input files. A CONSORT-NLP graphical user interface was built using Java in 2019. The time required to complete the CONSORT checklist manually vs using the CONSORT-NLP tool was compared for 30 articles. Two case studies for randomized clinical trials are provided as an illustration for the CONSORT-NLP tool. For the 30 articles investigated, CONSORT-NLP required a mean (SD) 23.0 (4.1) seconds, whereas the manual reviewer required a mean (SD) 11.9 (2.2), 22.6 (4.6), and 57.6 (7.1) minutes, for 3 reviewers, respectively.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          The CONSORT-NLP tool is designed to assist in the reporting of randomized clinical trials. Potential users of CONSORT-NLP include clinicians, researchers, and scientists who plan to publish a randomized trial study in a peer-reviewed journal. The use of CONSORT-NLP may help them save substantial time when generating the CONSORT checklist. This tool may also be useful for manuscript reviewers and journal editors who review these articles.

          Abstract

          This study evaluates an automated reporting checklist generation tool that uses natural language processing to improve adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting checklist for randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Natural language processing: an introduction.

          To provide an overview and tutorial of natural language processing (NLP) and modern NLP-system design. This tutorial targets the medical informatics generalist who has limited acquaintance with the principles behind NLP and/or limited knowledge of the current state of the art. We describe the historical evolution of NLP, and summarize common NLP sub-problems in this extensive field. We then provide a synopsis of selected highlights of medical NLP efforts. After providing a brief description of common machine-learning approaches that are being used for diverse NLP sub-problems, we discuss how modern NLP architectures are designed, with a summary of the Apache Foundation's Unstructured Information Management Architecture. We finally consider possible future directions for NLP, and reflect on the possible impact of IBM Watson on the medical field.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Reporting of Multi-Arm Parallel-Group Randomized Trials

            The quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials is suboptimal. In an era in which the need for greater research transparency is paramount, inadequate reporting hinders assessment of the reliability and validity of trial findings. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement was developed to improve the reporting of randomized clinical trials, but the primary focus was on parallel-group trials with 2 groups. Multi-arm trials that use a parallel-group design (comparing treatments by concurrently randomizing participants to one of the treatment groups, usually with equal probability) but have 3 or more groups are relatively common. The quality of reporting of multi-arm trials varies substantially, making judgments and interpretation difficult. While the majority of the elements of the CONSORT 2010 Statement apply equally to multi-arm trials, some elements need adaptation, and, in some cases, additional issues need to be clarified.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Assessment of Deep Natural Language Processing in Ascertaining Oncologic Outcomes From Radiology Reports

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                8 October 2020
                October 2020
                8 October 2020
                : 3
                : 10
                : e2014661
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
                [2 ]American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, Virginia
                [3 ]Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
                [4 ]Duke Forge, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
                [5 ]Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
                [6 ]Verily Life Sciences, South San Francisco, California
                [7 ]Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale Center for Medical Informatics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: June 12, 2020.
                Published: October 8, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.14661
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2020 Wang F et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Herbert Pang, PhD, School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, 7 Sassoon Rd, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong, China ( herbpang@ 123456hku.hk ).
                Author Contributions: Ms F. Wang and Dr Pang had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs X. Wang and Pang are co–senior authors.
                Concept and design: F. Wang, Page, Pang.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: F. Wang, Schilsky, Califf, Cheung, X. Wang, Pang.
                Drafting of the manuscript: F. Wang, Califf, Pang.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Schilsky, Page, Califf, Cheung, X. Wang.
                Statistical analysis: F. Wang, Pang.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Califf, Cheung, Pang.
                Supervision: Page, Pang.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Schilsky reported grants from AstraZeneca, grants from Bayer, grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, grants from Genentech, grants from Lilly, grants from Merck, and grants from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr Califf reported other from Verily Life Sciences and Google Health outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This work is partially supported by National Cancer Institute grant P01CA142538 (Dr X. Wang), National Institute on Aging grant R01AG066883 (Dr X. Wang), and Health and Medical Research Fund grant 16172901 (Dr Pang). Dr Schilsky is the principal investigator of the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology receives grants from the following companies in support of the trial: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer. Dr Califf has board membership at Cytokinetics and received personal fees from Merck, Lilly, Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Biogen during the conduct of the study.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding sources had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Additional Contributions: We would also like to thank the late Doug Altman, FMedSci, who was the driving force behind the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT).
                Article
                zoi200554
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.14661
                7545295
                33030549
                29cc96c5-9cf3-4bbd-baaf-802658bb5261
                Copyright 2020 Wang F et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 18 March 2020
                : 12 June 2020
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Medical Journals and Publishing

                Comments

                Comment on this article