ReviewJournal of digital imaging2018
Quantitative Analysis of Uncertainty in Medical Reporting: Creating a Standardized and Objective Methodology.
Review in Journal of digital imaging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- BERT-based natural language processing analysis of French CT reports: Application to the measurement of the positivity rate for pulmonary embolism.Research in diagnostic and interventional imaging · 2023Article
- Automated Detection of Radiology Reports that Require Follow-up Imaging Using Natural Language Processing Feature Engineering and Machine Learning Classification.Journal of digital imaging · 2020Article
- Quantitative Analysis of Uncertainty in Medical Reporting: Part 3: Customizable Education, Decision Support, and Automated Alerts.Journal of digital imaging · 2018Review
- Quantifying Analysis of Uncertainty in Medical Reporting: Creation of User and Context-Specific Uncertainty Profiles.Journal of digital imaging · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Uncertainty in text-based medical reports has long been recognized as problematic, frequently resulting in misunderstanding and miscommunication. One strategy for addressing the negative clinical ramifications of report uncertainty would be the creation of a standardized methodology for characterizing and quantifying uncertainty language, which could provide both the report author and reader with context related to the perceived level of diagnostic confidence and accuracy. A number of computerized strategies could be employed in the creation of this analysis including string search, natural language processing and understanding, histogram analysis, topic modeling, and machine learning. The derived uncertainty data offers the potential to objectively analyze report uncertainty in real time and correlate with outcomes analysis for the purpose of context and user-specific decision support at the point of care, where intervention would have the greatest clinical impact.
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.