{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02406832298136646, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0038819875776397515, 'mean_word_length': 6.043715846994536, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Leveraging terminologies for retrieval of radiology reports with critical imaging findings.

INTRODUCTION
Communication of critical imaging findings is an important component of medical quality and safety. A fundamental challenge includes retrieval of radiology reports that contain these findings. This study describes the expressiveness and coverage of existing medical terminologies for critical imaging findings and evaluates radiology report retrieval using each terminology.


METHODS
Four terminologies were evaluated: National Cancer Institute Thesaurus (NCIT), Radiology Lexicon (RadLex), Systemized Nomenclature of Medicine (SNOMED-CT), and International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9-CM). Concepts in each terminology were identified for 10 critical imaging findings. Three findings were subsequently selected to evaluate document retrieval.


RESULTS
SNOMED-CT consistently demonstrated the highest number of overall terms (mean=22) for each of ten critical findings. However, retrieval rate and precision varied between terminologies for the three findings evaluated.


CONCLUSION
No single terminology is optimal for retrieving radiology reports with critical findings. The expressiveness of a terminology does not consistently correlate with radiology report retrieval.