The Tyranny of Accuracy in Radiologic Education

Radiology ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 222 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard B. Gunderman ◽  
James M. Nyce
Keyword(s):  
Radiologic Education

Feedback in Radiologic Education

2009 ◽  
pp. 63-70
Author(s):  
R. B. Gunderman ◽  
K. B. Williamson
Keyword(s):  
Radiologic Education

Perspectives in Radiologic Education

1986 ◽  
Vol 21 (9) ◽  
pp. 743-745 ◽  
Author(s):  
CAROLINE E. BLANE ◽  
JUDITH G. CALHOUN ◽  
KAY H. VYDARENY
Keyword(s):  
Radiologic Education

Instructional Technology and Radiologic Education

Radiology ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 221 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard B. Gunderman ◽  
Ya-Ping Kang ◽  
Ronald E. Fraley ◽  
Kenneth B. Williamson
Keyword(s):  
Instructional Technology ◽  
Radiologic Education

scholarly journals Structured reporting in radiologic education – Potential of different PI-RADS versions in prostate MRI controlled by in-bore MR-guided biopsies

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marietta Garmer ◽  
Julia Karpienski ◽  
Dietrich HW Groenemeyer ◽  
Birgit Wagener ◽  
Lars Kamper ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Detection ◽  
Roc Analysis ◽  
Multiparametric Mri ◽  
Structured Reporting ◽  
Observer Agreement ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Prostate Cancer Detection ◽  
Experienced Radiologist ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Radiologic Education

Objectives: To evaluate the efficiency of structured reporting in radiologic education – based on the example of different PI-RADS score versions for multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate. Methods: MpMRI of 688 prostate lesions in 180 patients were retrospectively reviewed by an experienced radiologist and by a student using PI-RADS V1 and V2. Data sets were reviewed for changes according to PI-RADS V2.1. The results were correlated with results obtained by MR-guided biopsy. Diagnostic potency was evaluated by ROC analysis. Sensitivity, specificity and correct-graded samples were evaluated for different cutpoints. The agreement between radiologist and student was determined for the aggregation of the PI-RADS score in three categories. The student’s time needed for evaluation was measured. Results: The area under curve of the ROC analysis was 0.782/0.788 (V1/V2) for the student and 0.841/0.833 (V1/V2) for the radiologist. The agreement between student and radiologist showed a Cohen‘s weighted κ coefficient of 0.495 for V1 and 0.518 for V2. Median student’s time needed for score assessment was 4:34 min for PI-RADSv1 and 2:00 min for PI-RADSv2 (p < 0.001). Re-evaluation for V2.1 changed the category in 1.4% of all ratings. Conclusion: The capacity of prostate cancer detection using PI-RADS V1 and V2 is dependent on the reader‘s experience. The results from the two observers indicate that structured reporting using PI-RADS and, controlled by histopathology, can be a valuable and quantifiable tool in students‘ or residents’ education. Herein, V2 was superior to V1 in terms of inter-observer agreement and time efficacy. Advances in knowledge: Structured reporting can be a valuable and quantifiable tool in radiologic education. Structured reporting using PI-RADS can be used by a student with good performance. PI-RADS V2 is superior to V1 in terms of inter-observer agreement and time efficacy.

scholarly journals Vital Signs in Radiologic Education

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 685-686
Author(s):  
Priscilla J. Slanetz
Keyword(s):  
Vital Signs ◽  
Radiologic Education
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document