ArticleJournal of digital imaging2008
Improving the utility of speech recognition through error detection.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Improving Clinical Documentation with Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Review.Perspectives in health information management · 2024Pooled it
- Speech recognition for clinical documentation from 1990 to 2018: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Pooled it
- Intelligent speech technologies for transcription, disease diagnosis, and medical equipment interactive control in smart hospitals: A review.Computers in biology and medicine · 2023Review
- Application of a Domain-specific BERT for Detection of Speech Recognition Errors in Radiology Reports.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2022Article
- Retrospective Analysis of Clinical Performance of an Estonian Speech Recognition System for Radiology: Effects of Different Acoustic and Language Models.Journal of digital imaging · 2018Article
- Analysis of Errors in Dictated Clinical Documents Assisted by Speech Recognition Software and Professional Transcriptionists.JAMA network open · 2018Article
- Automatically Detecting Likely Edits in Clinical Notes Created Using Automatic Speech Recognition.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2017Article
- Incidence of speech recognition errors in the emergency department.International journal of medical informatics · 2016Article
- The accuracy of radiology speech recognition reports in a multilingual South African teaching hospital.BMC medical imaging · 2015Article
- Learning curve of speech recognition.Journal of digital imaging · 2013Article
- Prepopulated radiology report templates: a prospective analysis of error rate and turnaround time.Journal of digital imaging · 2012Article
- Improvement of report workflow and productivity using speech recognition--a follow-up study.Journal of digital imaging · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the potential to dominate radiology reporting, current speech recognition technology is thus far a weak and inconsistent alternative to traditional human transcription. This is attributable to poor accuracy rates, in spite of vendor claims, and the wasted resources that go into correcting erroneous reports. A solution to this problem is post-speech-recognition error detection that will assist the radiologist in proofreading more efficiently. In this paper, we present a statistical method for error detection that can be applied after transcription. The results are encouraging, showing an error detection rate as high as 96% in some cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.