Literature DB >> 25954448

A novel method to assess incompleteness of mammography reports.

Francisco J Gimenez1, Yirong Wu2, Elizabeth S Burnside2, Daniel L Rubin3.   

Abstract

Mammography has been shown to improve outcomes of women with breast cancer, but it is subject to inter-reader variability. One well-documented source of such variability is in the content of mammography reports. The mammography report is of crucial importance, since it documents the radiologist's imaging observations, interpretation of those observations in terms of likelihood of malignancy, and suggested patient management. In this paper, we define an incompleteness score to measure how incomplete the information content is in the mammography report and provide an algorithm to calculate this metric. We then show that the incompleteness score can be used to predict errors in interpretation. This method has 82.6% accuracy at predicting errors in interpretation and can possibly reduce total diagnostic errors by up to 21.7%. Such a method can easily be modified to suit other domains that depend on quality reporting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25954448      PMCID: PMC4419904     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc        ISSN: 1559-4076


  27 in total

1.  Communication of doubt and certainty in radiological reports.

Authors:  J L Hobby; B D Tom; C Todd; P W Bearcroft; A K Dixon
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003.

Authors:  Robert A Smith; Debbie Saslow; Kimberly Andrews Sawyer; Wylie Burke; Mary E Costanza; W Phil Evans; Roger S Foster; Edward Hendrick; Harmon J Eyre; Steven Sener
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2003 May-Jun       Impact factor: 508.702

3.  Toward normative expert systems: Part I. The Pathfinder project.

Authors:  D E Heckerman; E J Horvitz; B N Nathwani
Journal:  Methods Inf Med       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.176

Review 4.  The demise of the "Greek Oracle" model for medical diagnostic systems.

Authors:  R A Miller; F E Masarie
Journal:  Methods Inf Med       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 2.176

Review 5.  Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials.

Authors:  Lennarth Nyström; Ingvar Andersson; Nils Bjurstam; Jan Frisell; Bo Nordenskjöld; Lars Erik Rutqvist
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-03-16       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample.

Authors:  C A Beam; P M Layde; D C Sullivan
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1996-01-22

7.  The threshold approach to clinical decision making.

Authors:  S G Pauker; J P Kassirer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1980-05-15       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Diana L Miglioretti; Lisa M Reisch; Mary B Barton; William Kreuter; Cindy L Christiansen; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-09-18       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Outcomes of screening mammography by frequency, breast density, and postmenopausal hormone therapy.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Weiwei Zhu; Rebecca A Hubbard; Berta Geller; Kim Dittus; Dejana Braithwaite; Karen J Wernli; Diana L Miglioretti; Ellen S O'Meara
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2013-05-13       Impact factor: 21.873

10.  Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description.

Authors:  J A Baker; P J Kornguth; C E Floyd
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 3.959

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.