ArticleJournal of digital imaging2019
Evaluating Completeness of a Radiology Glossary Using Iterative Refinement.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Ontology-Based Radiology Teaching File Summarization, Coverage, and Integration.Journal of digital imaging · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A lay-language glossary of radiology, built to help patients better understand the content of their radiology reports, has been analyzed for its coverage and readability, but not for its completeness. We present an iterative method to sample radiology reports, identify "missing" terms, and measure the glossary's completeness. We hypothesized that the refinement process would reduce the number of missing terms to fewer than 1 per report. A random sample of 1000 radiology reports from a large US academic health system was divided into 10 cohorts of 100 reports each. Each cohort was reviewed in sequence by two investigators to identify terms (single words and multi-word phrases) absent from the glossary. Terms marked as new were added to the glossary and hence was shown as matched in subsequent cohorts. This HIPAA-compliant study was IRB-approved; informed consent was waived. The refinement process added a mean of 288.0 new terms per 100 reports in the first 5 cohorts vs. a mean of 66.0 new terms per 100 reports in the last 5 cohorts; the difference was statistically significant (p < .01). After reviewing 500 reports, the review process found fewer than 1 new term per report in each of 500 subsequent reports. The findings suggest that 500 to 1000 reports is adequate to test the completeness of a glossary, and that the glossary after iterative refinement achieved a high level of completeness to cover the vocabulary of radiology reports.
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.