Skip to main content
Log in

Redefining the Practice of Peer Review Through Intelligent Automation—Part 3: Automated Report Analysis and Data Reconciliation

  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One method for addressing existing peer review limitations is the assignment of peer review cases on a completely blinded basis, in which the peer reviewer would create an independent report which can then be cross-referenced with the primary reader report of record. By leveraging existing computerized data mining techniques, one could in theory automate and objectify the process of report data extraction, classification, and analysis, while reducing time and resource requirements intrinsic to manual peer review report analysis. Once inter-report analysis has been performed, resulting inter-report discrepancies can be presented to the radiologist of record for review, along with the option to directly communicate with the peer reviewer through an electronic data reconciliation tool aimed at collaboratively resolving inter-report discrepancies and improving report accuracy. All associated report and reconciled data could in turn be recorded in a referenceable peer review database, which provides opportunity for context and user-specific education and decision support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Durand DJ, Robertson CT, Agarwal G et al.: Expert witness blinding strategies to mitigate bias in radiology malpractice cases: a comprehensive review of the literature. J Am Coll Radiol 11:868–873, 2014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Reiner B: Redefining the practice of peer review through intelligent automation. part1: creation of a standardized methodology and referenceable database. J Digit Imaging, 2017. In press

  3. Tomar D, Agarwal S: A survey on data mining approaches for healthcare. Int J Biosci Biotechnol 5:241–266, 2013

    Google Scholar 

  4. Koh HC, Tan G: Data mining applications in healthcare. J Healthc Inf Manag 19:64–72, 2005

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bellazzi R, Zupan B: Predictive data mining in clinical medicine: current issues and guidelines. Intl J Med Inform 77:81–97, 2008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Reiner B: Uncovering and improving upon the inherent deficiencies of radiology reporting through data mining. J Digit Imaging 23:109–118, 2010

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Kharat AT, Singh A, Kulkarni VM et al.: Data mining in radiology. Indian J Radiol Imaging 24:97–102, 2014

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruce I. Reiner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reiner, B.I. Redefining the Practice of Peer Review Through Intelligent Automation—Part 3: Automated Report Analysis and Data Reconciliation. J Digit Imaging 31, 1–4 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-017-0006-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-017-0006-2

Keywords

Navigation