ArticleJournal of digital imaging2013
Learning curve of speech recognition.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Speech recognition for clinical documentation from 1990 to 2018: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Pooled it
- Physician experience with speech recognition software in psychiatry: usage and perspective.BMC research notes · 2018Article
- [IT systems in radiology and IT systems for radiologists].Der Radiologe · 2014Article
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
Speech recognition (SR) speeds patient care processes by reducing report turnaround times. However, concerns have emerged about prolonged training and an added secretarial burden for radiologists. We assessed how much proofing radiologists who have years of experience with SR and radiologists new to SR must perform, and estimated how quickly the new users become as skilled as the experienced users. We studied SR log entries for 0.25 million reports from 154 radiologists and after careful exclusions, defined a group of 11 experienced radiologists and 71 radiologists new to SR (24,833 and 122,093 reports, respectively). Data were analyzed for sound file and report lengths, character-based error rates, and words unknown to the SR's dictionary. Experienced radiologists corrected 6 characters for each report and for new users, 11. Some users presented a very unfavorable learning curve, with error rates not declining as expected. New users' reports were longer, and data for the experienced users indicates that their reports, initially equally lengthy, shortened over a period of several years. For most radiologists, only minor corrections of dictated reports were necessary. While new users adopted SR quickly, with a subset outperforming experienced users from the start, identification of users struggling with SR will help facilitate troubleshooting and support.
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.