Literature DB >> 30815120

Detecting Technical Image Quality in Radiology Reports.

Thusitha Mabotuwana1,2, Varun S Bhandarkar2, Christopher S Hall1,2, Martin L Gunn1,2.   

Abstract

Image interpretation accuracy is critical to ensure optimal care, yet many diagnostic reports contain expressions of uncertainty often due to shortcomings in technical quality among other factors. While radiologists will usually attempt to interpret images and render a diagnosis even if the imaging quality is suboptimal, often the details related to any quality concerns are dictated into the report. Despite imaging exam quality being an import factor for accurate image interpretation, there is a significant knowledge gap in terms of understanding the nature and frequency of technical limitations mentioned in radiology reports. To address some of these limitations, in this research we developed algorithms to automatically detect a broad spectrum of acquisition-related quality concerns using a dataset containing 1,210,858 exams. There was some type of a quality concern mentioned in 2.4% of exams with motion being the most frequent.

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30815120      PMCID: PMC6371374     

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


  22 in total

1.  Online Error Reporting for Managing Quality Control Within Radiology.

Authors:  Pedram Golnari; Daniel Forsberg; Beverly Rosipko; Jeffrey L Sunshine
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Accuracy of diagnostic procedures: has it improved over the past five decades?

Authors:  Leonard Berlin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Artifacts in digital radiography.

Authors:  David A Jiménez; Laura J Armbrust; Robert T O'Brien; David S Biller
Journal:  Vet Radiol Ultrasound       Date:  2008 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.363

Review 4.  Peer review in diagnostic radiology: current state and a vision for the future.

Authors:  Shmuel Mahgerefteh; Jonathan B Kruskal; Chun S Yam; Arye Blachar; Jacob Sosna
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2009-06-29       Impact factor: 5.333

5.  Frequency and analysis of non-clinical errors made in radiology reports using the National Integrated Medical Imaging System voice recognition dictation software.

Authors:  R E Motyer; S Liddy; W C Torreggiani; O Buckley
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2016-10-01       Impact factor: 1.568

6.  The malpractice liability of radiology reports: minimizing the risk.

Authors:  Aparna Srinivasa Babu; Michael L Brooks
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2015 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.333

Review 7.  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.  One year's results from a server-based system for performing reject analysis and exposure analysis in computed radiography.

Authors:  A Kyle Jones; Raimund Polman; Charles E Willis; S Jeff Shepard
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 4.056

9.  A succinct rating scale for radiology report quality.

Authors:  Chengwu Yang; Claudia J Kasales; Tao Ouyang; Christine M Peterson; Nabeel I Sarwani; Rafel Tappouni; Michael Bruno
Journal:  SAGE Open Med       Date:  2014-12-16

10.  Image rejects in general direct digital radiography.

Authors:  Bjørn Hofmann; Tine Blomberg Rosanowsky; Camilla Jensen; Kenneth Hong Ching Wah
Journal:  Acta Radiol Open       Date:  2015-10-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.