ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2010
Understanding Inter-rater Disagreement: A Mixed Methods Approach.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physician inter-annotator agreement in the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative manual abstraction task.Journal of oncology practice · 2013Article
- Qualitative analysis of workflow modifications used to generate the reference standard for the 2010 i2b2/VA challenge.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In an experiment to investigate cognitive skill differences between clinicians and lay persons, eight individuals in each group were asked to determine if an explicit concept existed in an ambulatory encounter note (a simple task) or if the concept could be inferred from the same note (a complex task). Subjects answered questions, highlighted text used to answer each question, and commented on their reasoning for selecting specific text. Quantitative results were mixed for expert vs. non-expert task performance on simple vs. complex tasks. Qualitative analysis revealed that data ambiguity obscured quantifiable skill differences between groups. In addition, this analysis offered new insight into whether a concept identification task is simple or complex. We present this case study to demonstrate the value of mixed method approaches to task-based performance study design and evaluation. We discuss the results in terms of their implications for evaluating meaningful use of technologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21346945PMC3041314What 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.