MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897714982 · doi:10.1016/j.carj.2018.06.006

Classification of Error in Abdominal Imaging: Pearls and Pitfalls for Radiologists

2018· review· en· W2897714982 on OpenAlexaff
Csilla Egri, Kathryn E. Darras, Elena P. Scali, Alison Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Association of Radiologists Journal · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiology practices and education
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiologyMedical physicsHarmValue (mathematics)Computer scienceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peer review for radiologists plays an important role in identifying contributing factors that can lead to diagnostic errors and patient harm. It is essential that all radiologists be aware of the multifactorial causes of diagnostic error in radiology and the methods available to reduce it. This pictorial review provides readers with an overview of common errors that occur in abdominal radiology and strategies to reduce them. This review aims to make readers more aware of pitfalls in abdominal imaging so that these errors can be avoided in the future. This essay also provides a systematic approach to classifying abdominal imaging errors that will be of value to all radiologists participating in peer review.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Association of Radiologists JournalSame topicRadiology practices and educationFrench-language works237,207