MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977504875 · doi:10.1258/1357633001935419

Video-capture teleradiology for the after-hours reading of computerized tomography scans

2000· article· en· W1977504875 on OpenAlexaff
Karen I. Kroeker, Robert Diamond, Penny Jennett, Robert V Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Telemedicine and Telecare · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiology practices and education
Canadian institutionsCapital District Health AuthorityUniversity of CalgaryWinnipeg Regional Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTeleradiologyMedical diagnosisMedicineGold standard (test)RadiologyNuclear medicineMedical physicsTelemedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluated the after-hours support that radiologists could provide from their homes to an urban hospital for reading emergency computerized tomography (CT) scans. During a six-month study period, 36 CT scans were acquired using a video-capture card in a PC and transmitted via an ordinary telephone line. The teleradiology interpretation and the formal report (from the hard copy) were compared with a reference or gold standard interpretation made by a radiologist and an emergency physician for 31 of the 36 cases. In comparison with the gold standard, there were 26 correct diagnoses by teleradiology (84%) and five incorrect (16%). Head CT scans accounted for 74% of the transmitted scans and all five of the cases with discrepant diagnoses. The cause of the single clinically relevant discrepancy was found to be unrelated to the use of teleradiology. In comparison with the formal report, the accuracy of the teleradiologist was not significantly different for all categories combined or for head CT scans alone. Video-capture technology provided a reliable means of transmitting CT scans for after-hours interpretation in emergency cases.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Telemedicine and TelecareSame topicRadiology practices and educationFrench-language works237,207