| Title |
Quantitative Analysis of Uncertainty in Medical Reporting: Creating a Standardized and Objective Methodology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Digital Imaging, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10278-017-0041-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bruce I. Reiner |
| Abstract |
Uncertainty in text-based medical reports has long been recognized as problematic, frequently resulting in misunderstanding and miscommunication. One strategy for addressing the negative clinical ramifications of report uncertainty would be the creation of a standardized methodology for characterizing and quantifying uncertainty language, which could provide both the report author and reader with context related to the perceived level of diagnostic confidence and accuracy. A number of computerized strategies could be employed in the creation of this analysis including string search, natural language processing and understanding, histogram analysis, topic modeling, and machine learning. The derived uncertainty data offers the potential to objectively analyze report uncertainty in real time and correlate with outcomes analysis for the purpose of context and user-specific decision support at the point of care, where intervention would have the greatest clinical impact. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 37% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 12 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 August 2019.
All research outputs
#14,836,410
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#682
of 1,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,364
of 440,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#7
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,061 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,938 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.