ArticleJournal of digital imaging2023
Utilizing a Digital Swarm Intelligence Platform to Improve Consensus Among Radiologists and Exploring Its Applications.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bridging the Great Discordance: Ontological Intelligence as the New Paradigm in Spine Surgery.Neurospine · 2026Article
- An overview of the use of cutting-edge artificial intelligence (AI) modeling to produce synthetic medical data (SMD) in decentralized clinical machine learning (ML) for ovarian cancer(OC) and ovarian lymphoma(OL).Journal of ultrasound · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Radiologists today play a central role in making diagnostic decisions and labeling images for training and benchmarking artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms. A key concern is low inter-reader reliability (IRR) seen between experts when interpreting challenging cases. While team-based decisions are known to outperform individual decisions, inter-personal biases often creep up in group interactions which limit nondominant participants from expressing true opinions. To overcome the dual problems of low consensus and interpersonal bias, we explored a solution modeled on bee swarms. Two separate cohorts, three board-certified radiologists, (cohort 1), and five radiology residents (cohort 2) collaborated on a digital swarm platform in real time and in a blinded fashion, grading meniscal lesions on knee MR exams. These consensus votes were benchmarked against clinical (arthroscopy) and radiological (senior-most radiologist) standards of reference using Cohen's kappa. The IRR of the consensus votes was then compared to the IRR of the majority and most confident votes of the two cohorts. IRR was also calculated for predictions from a meniscal lesion detecting AI algorithm. The attending cohort saw an improvement of 23% in IRR of swarm votes (k = 0.34) over majority vote (k = 0.11). Similar improvement of 23% in IRR (k = 0.25) in 3-resident swarm votes over majority vote (k = 0.02) was observed. The 5-resident swarm had an even higher improvement of 30% in IRR (k = 0.37) over majority vote (k = 0.07). The swarm consensus votes outperformed individual and majority vote decision in both the radiologists and resident cohorts. The attending and resident swarms also outperformed predictions from a state-of-the-art AI algorithm.
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.