Literature DB >> 28752322

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

Bruce I Reiner1.   

Abstract

In conventional radiology peer review practice, a small number of exams (routinely 5% of the total volume) is randomly selected, which may significantly underestimate the true error rate within a given radiology practice. An alternative and preferable approach would be to create a data-driven model which mathematically quantifies a peer review risk score for each individual exam and uses this data to identify high risk exams and readers, and selectively target these exams for peer review. An analogous model can also be created to assist in the assignment of these peer review cases in keeping with specific priorities of the service provider. An additional option to enhance the peer review process would be to assign the peer review cases in a truly blinded fashion. In addition to eliminating traditional peer review bias, this approach has the potential to better define exam-specific standard of care, particularly when multiple readers participate in the peer review process.

Keywords:  Data mining; Peer review; Report analysis; Workflow distribution

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28752322      PMCID: PMC5681461          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-017-0005-3

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


  8 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.  The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance.

Authors:  Afina S Glas; Jeroen G Lijmer; Martin H Prins; Gouke J Bonsel; Patrick M M Bossuyt
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Optimizing radiology peer review: a mathematical model for selecting future cases based on prior errors.

Authors:  Yun Robert Sheu; Elie Feder; Igor Balsim; Victor F Levin; Andrew G Bleicher; Barton F Branstetter
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 5.532

Review 4.  The use of receiver operating characteristic curves in biomedical informatics.

Authors:  Thomas A Lasko; Jui G Bhagwat; Kelly H Zou; Lucila Ohno-Machado
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2005-04-02       Impact factor: 6.317

Review 5.  Receiver-operating characteristic analysis for evaluating diagnostic tests and predictive models.

Authors:  Kelly H Zou; A James O'Malley; Laura Mauri
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2007-02-06       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 6.  Redefining the Practice of Peer Review Through Intelligent Automation Part 1: Creation of a Standardized Methodology and Referenceable Database.

Authors:  Bruce I Reiner
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 4.056

7.  A general natural-language text processor for clinical radiology.

Authors:  C Friedman; P O Alderson; J H Austin; J J Cimino; S B Johnson
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  1994 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 8.  Uncovering and improving upon the inherent deficiencies of radiology reporting through data mining.

Authors:  Bruce Reiner
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.056

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.