Detection rates in pediatric diagnostic imaging: A picture archive and communication system compared with a web-based imaging system.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This prospective study assesses whether there are differences in accuracy of interpretation of diagnostic images among users of a picture archive and communication system (PACS) diagnostic workstation, compared with a less costly Web-based imaging system on a personal computer (PC) with a high-resolution monitor. METHODS: One hundred consecutive pediatric chest or abdomen and skeletal X-rays were selected from hospital inpatient and outpatient studies over a 5-month interval. They were classified as normal (n = 32), obviously abnormal (n = 33), or having subtle abnormal findings (n = 35) by 2 senior radiologists who reached a consensus for each individual case. Subsequently, 5 raters with varying degrees of experience independently viewed and interpreted the cases as normal or abnormal. Raters viewed each image 1 month apart on a PACS and on the Web-based PC imaging system. McNemar tests were used to compare accuracy of interpretation across both imaging systems. Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for differences in the proportion assessed incorrectly on the PACS, compared with the Web-based PC imaging system. RESULTS: There was no relation between accuracy of detection and the system used to evaluate X-ray images (P = 0.92). The total percentage of incorrect interpretations on the Web-based PC imaging system was 23.2%, compared with 23.6% on the PACS (P = 0.92). For all raters combined, the overall difference in proportion assessed incorrectly on the PACS, compared with the PC system, was not significant at 0.4% (95%CI, -3.5% to 4.3%). CONCLUSION: The high-resolution Web-based imaging system via PC is an adequate alternative to a PACS clinical workstation. Accordingly, the provision of a more extensive network of workstations throughout the hospital setting could have potentially significant cost savings.
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 | 0.007 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".