Literature DB >> 28744582

Redefining the Practice of Peer Review Through Intelligent Automation Part 1: Creation of a Standardized Methodology and Referenceable Database.

Bruce I Reiner1.   

Abstract

Conventional peer review practice is compromised by a number of well-documented biases, which in turn limit standard of care analysis, which is fundamental to determination of medical malpractice. In addition to these intrinsic biases, other existing deficiencies exist in current peer review including the lack of standardization, objectivity, retrospective practice, and automation. An alternative model to address these deficiencies would be one which is completely blinded to the peer reviewer, requires independent reporting from both parties, utilizes automated data mining techniques for neutral and objective report analysis, and provides data reconciliation for resolution of finding-specific report differences. If properly implemented, this peer review model could result in creation of a standardized referenceable peer review database which could further assist in customizable education, technology refinement, and implementation of real-time context and user-specific decision support.

Keywords:  Data mining; Peer review; Report analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28744582      PMCID: PMC5603429          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-017-0004-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  14 in total

1.  Integration of radiologist peer review into clinical review workstation.

Authors:  K W McEnery; C T Suitor; S Hildebrand; R L Downs
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Hindsight bias.

Authors:  L Berlin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Outcome bias.

Authors:  Leonard Berlin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Juries and medical malpractice claims: empirical facts versus myths.

Authors:  Neil Vidmar
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-11-11       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Context bias. A problem in diagnostic radiology.

Authors:  T K Egglin; A R Feinstein
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-12-04       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 6.  Peer review in clinical radiology practice.

Authors:  Rathachai Kaewlai; Hani Abujudeh
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 7.  Expert witness blinding strategies to mitigate bias in radiology malpractice cases: a comprehensive review of the literature.

Authors:  Daniel J Durand; Christopher T Robertson; Gautam Agarwal; Richard Duszak; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Jason N Itri; Anthony Fotenos; Brent Savoie; Alexander Ding; Jonathan S Lewin
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2014-07-16       Impact factor: 5.532

Review 8.  Current perspectives in medical image perception.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  Previous mammograms in patients with impalpable breast carcinoma: retrospective vs blinded interpretation. 1993 ARRS President's Award.

Authors:  J A Harvey; L L Fajardo; C A Innis
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  The standard of care: legal history and definitions: the bad and good news.

Authors:  Peter Moffett; Gregory Moore
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2011-02
View more
  2 in total

1.  Redefining the Practice of Peer Review Through Intelligent Automation Part 2: Data-Driven Peer Review Selection and Assignment.

Authors:  Bruce I Reiner
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 2.  Redefining the Practice of Peer Review Through Intelligent Automation-Part 3: Automated Report Analysis and Data Reconciliation.

Authors:  Bruce I Reiner
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 4.056

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.