Diagnostic Accuracy of an iPhone DICOM Viewer for the Interpretation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of viewing magnetic resonance (MR) images on a handheld mobile device compared with a conventional radiology workstation for the diagnosis of intra-articular knee pathology. DESIGN: Prospective comparison study. SETTING: Tertiary care center. PATIENTS: Fifty consecutive subjects who had MR imaging of the knee followed by knee arthroscopy were prospectively evaluated. INTERVENTIONS: Two musculoskeletal radiologists independently reviewed each MR study using 2 different viewers: the OsiriX DICOM viewer software on an Apple iPhone 3GS device and eFilm Workstation software on a conventional picture archiving and communications system workstation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of the iPhone and workstation interpretations was performed using knee arthroscopy as the reference standard. Intraobserver concordance and agreement between the iPhone and workstation interpretations were determined. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 devices for each paired comparison of diagnostic performance. For the iPhone interpretations, sensitivity ranged from 77% (13 of 17) for the lateral meniscus to 100% (17 of 17) for the anterior cruciate ligament. Specificity ranged from 74% (14 of 19) for cartilage to 100% (50 of 50) for the posterior cruciate ligament. There was a very high level of interobserver and intraobserver agreement between devices and readers. The iPhone reads took longer than the corresponding workstation reads, with a significant mean difference between the iPhone and workstation reads of 3.98 minutes (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic performance of interpreting MR images on a handheld mobile device for the assessment of intra-articular knee pathology is similar to that of a conventional radiology workstation, however, requires a longer viewing time. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Timely and accurate interpretation of complex medical images using mobile device solutions could result in new workflow efficiencies and ultimately improve patient care.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".