Assessing the Necessity and Cost-effectiveness of Radiology Reports for Plain Hand Radiographs in Outpatient Clinics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the necessity and cost-effectiveness of radiologists’ interpretation of plain hand radiographs for diagnosing and managing different hand pathologies in the plastic surgery outpatient clinic setting. Methods: Through a retrospective cohort study, we identified new patient encounters from January 2021 to December 2022 in an outpatient hand clinic. We included patients with radiology reports that were submitted subsequent to the surgeon's consult note in clinic. Plastic surgeons’ interpretations were compared with radiology reports, and findings were categorized as concordant, discrepant (different with no impact on management), or discordant (different with an impact on management). Analysis included radiograph type, underlying mechanism, site of pathology, and hand fellowship training for surgeons. Direct cost was calculated using billing code fees. Results: A total of 241 cases were included in the study: 187 were concordant (77.6%), 53 were discrepant (22%) and only one was discordant (0.4%). Trauma was the predominant reported mechanism (90.5%). Most pathologies were in the phalanges (53.5%), followed by metacarpals (30.7%) and carpals (15.8%). Univariate analysis demonstrated no significant association between radiograph type ( P = .829), underlying mechanism ( P = .172), site of pathology ( P = .482), surgeon's training ( P = .551) and concordance with radiology reports. Total direct cost of radiographs reporting in this study was 8477 CAD. Conclusion: The study identified high concordance rates of hand radiograph findings between plastic surgeons and radiologists, with radiology reports rarely impacting patient management. Given the significant patient volume in plastic surgery hand clinics, these findings prompt further considerations in optimizing cost-effective diagnostic practices.
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 | 0.010 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".