2014
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2253-14-94
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improving diagnostic accuracy in assessing pulmonary edema on bedside chest radiographs using a standardized scoring approach

Abstract: BackgroundTo assess the value of a score-based system which allows standardized evaluation of pulmonary edema on bedside chest radiographs (CXRs) under routine clinical conditions.MethodsSeven experienced readers assessed bedside CXRs of ten patients with an extravascular lung water (EVLW)-value of ≤ 8 mL/kg (range: 4–8 mL/kg; indicates no pulmonary edema) and a series of ten patients with an EVLW-value of ≥ 15 mL/kg (range: 15–21 mL/kg; = indicates a pulmonary edema) with and without customized software which… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
15
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
(51 reference statements)
1
15
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Automated evaluation of pulmonary edema severity on CXRs has been explored using a deep learning model that incorporates ordinal regression of edema severity labels in training (no, mild, moderate, or severe edema) ( 24 ). These severity labels were extracted from associated radiology reports, but are inherently noisy given the variability in interpretation of the CXRs ( 25 , 26 ). This problem of noisy labels extends beyond pulmonary edema to any disease process where there is subjectivity in interpretation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Automated evaluation of pulmonary edema severity on CXRs has been explored using a deep learning model that incorporates ordinal regression of edema severity labels in training (no, mild, moderate, or severe edema) ( 24 ). These severity labels were extracted from associated radiology reports, but are inherently noisy given the variability in interpretation of the CXRs ( 25 , 26 ). This problem of noisy labels extends beyond pulmonary edema to any disease process where there is subjectivity in interpretation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to the lack of recognized systems for quantitative CXR classification of effusion severity, pleural effusion was arbitrarily defined from 0 to 4 (0 = no effusion; 1 = effusion limited to the costophrenic angles, not above the level of the diaphragm; 2 = effusion above the diaphragm but below the hilum; 3 = effusion extending above the hilum; 4 = effusion in the whole hemithorax) Atelectasis , classified with a score from 0 to 3 as none, mild, moderate, and severe for each lung. Pulmonary interstitial edema, defined as none, moderate, severe, according to recent classifications . An example is illustrated in Figure Diaphragmatic anomalies …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Automated evaluation of pulmonary edema severity on CXRs has been explored using a deep learning model that incorporates ordinal regression of edema severity labels in training (no, mild, moderate, or severe edema) (22). These severity labels were extracted from associated radiology reports, but are inherently noisy given the variability in interpretation of the CXRs (23,24). This problem of noisy labels extends beyond pulmonary edema to any disease process where there is subjectivity in interpretation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%