Artificial intelligence-enabled analysis of radiology reports: epidemiology and outcomes of incidental thyroid findings

Le résumé fourni par la source

CONTEXT: Incidental thyroid findings (ITFs) are increasingly detected on imaging performed for non-thyroid indications. Their prevalence, features, and consequences remain undefined. OBJECTIVE: To develop, validate, and deploy a natural language processing (NLP) pipeline to identify ITFs in radiology reports and assess their prevalence, features, and clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Mayo Clinic sites (Rochester, Arizona, Florida, Mayo Clinic Health System). PARTICIPANTS: Adults without prior thyroid disease undergoing thyroid-capturing imaging from July 1, 2017, to September 30, 2023. A transformer-based NLP pipeline identified ITFs and extracted nodule characteristics from image reports from multiple modalities and body regions. OUTCOMES: ITF prevalence, downstream thyroid ultrasound, biopsy, thyroidectomy, and cancer diagnosis. Logistic regression identified demographic and imaging-related factors. RESULTS: Among 115 683 patients (mean age, 56.8 [SD 17.2]; 52.9% women), 9077 (7.8%) had an ITF (92.9% nodular). ITFs were more likely in women, older adults, higher BMI, and in imaging ordered by specialties different from Emergency Medicine. Compared with chest CT, ITFs were more likely via neck CT, PET, and nuclear medicine scans. Nodule characteristics were poorly documented, with size reported in 44% and other features in fewer than 15%. Compared with patients without ITFs, those with ITFs had higher odds of thyroid nodule diagnosis (OR 45, 95%CI 41.1-49.3), biopsy (OR 46.8, 95%CI 39.0-56.2) thyroidectomy (OR 55.8, 95%CI 31.3-99.3), and thyroid cancer diagnosis (OR 61.7, 95%CI 38.6-98.5). Most cancers were papillary (88.5%) and larger when detected after ITFs (2 cm SD 1.4) vs no ITF (1.3 cm SD 0.8). CONCLUSION: ITFs were common and strongly associated with cascades leading to the detection of small, low-risk cancers, highlighting their role in overdiagnosis and the need for standardized reporting and more selective follow-up.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.