The Effect of Mask Wearing on the Accuracy of Radiology Reports in an Academic Hospital Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In response to the pandemic, some public health agencies recommend the wearing of surgical masks in indoor spaces including radiology common reporting rooms. We aim to demonstrate whether mask wearing may lead to increased errors incidence in radiology reports. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our prospective studywas conveyed in 2 parts. Firstly, the participants were surveyed if they believed that mask affected dictation. Then participants performed a dictation: they read artificial radiology reports using a commercial voice recognition (VR) system. They performed this task 5 times, each time donning a different mask in random order: a surgical mask, surgical visor, N-95, combination of 2 surgical masks and no mask. Error rates were compared with the Friedman test followed by pairwise Wilcoxon with bootstrapping. Multivariate Poisson regression was performed to test for interaction effects between potential predictors. RESULTS: 52 members of an academic radiology department participatedin the study (January - March 2021) . 65.4% of survey participants did not think or were not sure whether mask wearing could affect dictation process. Treating the no-mask condition as baseline, our study found that mean error rates significantly increased up to 2 times the baseline rate when a surgical mask, surgical visor, N-95 or a combination of 2 masks was donned (p < 0.0001). No significant differences in error rates were found between the different mask types (p > 0.05). Error rates were higher for participants with shorter VR training time (p < 0.0001) or who were non-native English speakers (p < 0.0001). There were no interaction effects between mask type, VR training time or English nativity, suggesting these variables to be independent predictors for error rate. Academic rank did not significantly affect the error rate. CONCLUSION: radiologists underestimate the influence of masks on dictation accuracy. mask wearing may lead to significant increase in dictational errors.
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 | 0.003 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".