• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Academic radiology >Evaluating radlex and real world radiology reporting. Are we there yet?
【24h】

Evaluating radlex and real world radiology reporting. Are we there yet?

机译：评估Radlex和现实世界放射学报告。 我们到了吗？

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

This issue of Academic Radiology contains a study by Woods and Eng (1) describing their experience using chest radiography reports generated in usual clinical practice to estimate the completeness of RadLex http://rsna.org/RadLex.aspx). RadLex was developed by the Radiological Society of North America to meet the terminology challenges of radiology by providing a uniform source of terms and concepts used by and for radiologists. The intent of RadLex is to reduce variation and improve clarity in radiology reports and image annotations as well as to provide a standardized means of indexing radiological materials in a variety of settings. These standardized terms can then be used for retrieving information from a variety of imaging information sources, including imaging research databases, educational materials, and clinical imaging reports. Using clinical imaging reports as the data source, this study is an important critique of the ability of RadLex to meet its stated goals.The study looked at the match rate for "objects" in routine chest radiography reports. In the analysis, there are two critical RadLex gaps that the authors identified that reduce matching frequency. The first is in relation to the terms that describe patient procedures, for example, "coronary artery bypass" or "aortic valve replacement." The initial impetus for RadLex was identified through a process of report content parsing and evaluation that was similar to the current study. Langlotz and Caldwell (2) mapped radiology reports objects against the largest medical lexicons, the Unified Medical Language System, and two constituent terminologies, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification and SNOMED International. The maximum coverage between radiology terms and content in the standard medical lexicons was 50%. In the current study, the procedure terms that fail to have matches in RadLex are precisely those terms that are readily found and well defined in those clinically oriented lexicons.
机译：这个学术放射学问题包含了树林和ENG（1）的研究，描述了他们使用通常在通常的临床实践中产生的胸部射线照相报告的经验来估计Radlex http://rsna.org/radlex.aspx的完整性。 Radlex是由北美的放射学会开发的，通过提供和为放射科医师使用的统一术语和概念来满足放射学的术语挑战。 Radlex的目的是降低变化并改善放射学报告和图像注释中的清晰度，以及提供各种设置中的索引放射材料的标准化手段。然后，这些标准化术语可以用于从各种成像信息源检索信息，包括成像研究数据库，教育材料和临床影像记报告。使用临床影像报告作为数据源，本研究是Radlex能力的重要批评，以满足其指定目标的能力。研究看着常规胸部射线照相报告中的“物体”的比赛率。在分析中，作者确定了两个关键的Radlex间隙，即减少匹配频率。第一个与描述患者程序的术语有关，例如，“冠状动脉旁路”或“主动脉瓣更换”。通过报告内容解析和评估的过程来确定Radlex的最初动力，类似于目前的研究。 LangloTz和Caldwell（2）映射放射学报告对象对最大的医疗词典，统一医疗语言系统和两个组成术语，国际疾病分类，第九次修订，临床修改和令人愤怒的国际分类。标准医疗词典中放射术语和内容之间的最大覆盖率为50％。在目前的研究中，无法在Radlex中匹配的程序术语恰恰是那些在临床导向的词典中容易发现和明确定义的术语。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Academic radiology》 |2013年第11期|共2页
  • 作者

    HeilbrunM.E.;

  • 作者单位

    Department of Radiology University of Utah School of Medicine 30 North 1900 East #1A071 Salt;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 放射医学;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号