Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 23, 2026

Expedited Radiation Biodosimetry by Automated Dicentric Chromosome Identification ADCI and Dose Estimation
Published on: September 4, 2017
Evaluation of Automated Public De-Identification Tools on a Corpus of Radiology Reports
Jackson M Steinkamp1, Taylor Pomeranz1, Jason Adleberg1
1Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce St, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (J.M.S., T.P., J.A., C.E.K., T.S.C.); and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass (J.M.S.).
Purpose:
To evaluate publicly available de-identification tools on a large corpus of narrative-text radiology reports.
Materials And Methods:
In this retrospective study, 21 categories of protected health information (PHI) in 2503 radiology reports were annotated from a large multihospital academic health system, collected between January 1, 2012 and January 8, 2019. A subset consisting of 1023 reports served as a test set; the remainder were used as domain-specific training data. The types and frequencies of PHI present within the reports were tallied. Five public de-identification tools were evaluated: MITRE Identification Scrubber Toolkit, U.S. National Library of Medicine‒Scrubber, Massachusetts Institute of Technology de-identification software, Emory Health Information DE-identification (HIDE) software, and Neuro named-entity recognition (NeuroNER). The tools were compared using metrics including recall, precision, and F1 score (the harmonic mean of recall and precision) for each category of PHI.
Results:
The annotators identified 3528 spans of PHI text within the 2503 reports. Cohen κ for interrater agreement was 0.938. Dates accounted for the majority of PHI found in the dataset of radiology reports (n = 2755 [78%]). The two best-performing tools both used machine learning methods-NeuroNER (precision, 94.5%; recall, 92.6%; microaveraged F1 score [F1], 93.6%) and Emory HIDE (precision, 96.6%; recall, 88.2%; F1, 92.2%)-but none exceeded 50% F1 on the important patient names category.
Conclusion:
PHI appeared infrequently within the corpus of reports studied, which created difficulties for training machine learning systems. Out-of-the-box de-identification tools achieved limited performance on the corpus of radiology reports, suggesting the need for further advancements in public datasets and trained models.Supplemental material is available for this article.See also the commentary by Tenenholtz and Wood in this issue.© RSNA, 2020.
Related Concept Videos
Positron Emission Tomography
One of the main requirements of a PET scan is a positron-emitting radioisotope, which is produced in a cyclotron and then attached to a substance used by the part of the body being...
Radiological Investigation I: X-ray and CT
Radiological Investigation II: MRI and Ventilation Perfusion Scan
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Ventilation Perfusion Scans are two radiological investigations that offer detailed diagnostic images of the body, particularly lung structures.
MRI
MRI uses magnetic fields and radiofrequency signals to distinguish between normal and abnormal tissues. This technology provides a more detailed diagnostic image than CT scans, enabling it to characterize pulmonary nodules, stage bronchogenic carcinoma, and evaluate inflammatory activity in...
Radiological Investigation III: Pulmonary Angiogram and PET Scan
Pulmonary Angiogram
A Pulmonary Angiogram is an invasive procedure involving injecting a contrast medium through a catheter threaded into the pulmonary artery or the right side of the heart to visualize the pulmonary vasculature. Computed Tomography (CT) scans have mainly replaced this...
Imaging Studies III: Computed Tomography

