Reliability of on-call radiology residents’ interpretation of 64-slice CT pulmonary angiography for the detection of pulmonary embolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) angiography for pulmonary embolism (PE) is the present standard for diagnosing PE. In many teaching hospitals, radiology residents are the first to review the case and to make an initial interpretation of the images. Accurate diagnosis of PE is crucial, especially in the emergency care setting. PURPOSE: To evaluate the discrepancies between resident and staff interpretations of 64-slice CT angiogram for PE. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Discrepancies between the preliminary reports by the on-call radiology resident were compared to the final report by the staff radiologist in 215 consecutive cases of 64-slice CT angiogram performed for PE, from May 2005 to March 2008. RESULTS: Discrepancies were noted in 25 of the 215 studies (11.6%). These residents' discrepancies consisted of three false-positive, four false-negative, and 18 equivocal cases. There was a decrease in the discrepancy rate from the second year to the fifth year of training by approximately 60%. CONCLUSION: The rate of discrepancy fell steeply between the second and fifth year of the residents training from 18.5% to 6.9%. Our study suggests that it is reasonable to have on-call radiology residents perform the preliminary interpretations of 64-slice CT for PE studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".