Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 673

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Idiopathic Interstitial Pneumonia: What Is the Effect of a Multidisciplinary Approach to Diagnosis?

Flaherty, Kevin R., King, Talmadge E., Raghu, Ganesh, Lynch, Joseph P., Colby, Thomas V., Travis, William D., Gross, Barry H., Kazerooni, Ella A., Toews, Galen B., Long, Qi, Murray, Susan, Lama, Vibha N., Gay, Steven E., Martinez, Fernando J.·2004·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

Current guidelines recommend that the clinician, radiologist, and pathologist work together to establish a diagnosis of idiopathic interstitial pneumonia. Three clinicians, two radiologists, and two pathologists reviewed 58 consecutive cases of suspected idiopathic interstitial pneumonia. Each participant was provided information in a sequential manner and was asked to record their diagnostic impression and level of confidence at each step. Interobserver agreement improved from the beginning to the end of the review. After the presentation of histopathologic information, radiologists changed their diagnostic impression more often than did clinicians. In general, as more information was provided the confidence level for a given diagnosis improved, and the diagnoses rendered with a high level of confidence were more likely congruent with the final pathologic consensus diagnosis. The final consensus pathologist diagnosis was idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in 30 cases. Clinicians identified 75% and radiologists identified 48% of these cases before presentation of the histopathologic information. Histopathologic information has the greatest impact on the final diagnosis, especially when the initial clinical/radiographic diagnosis is not idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. We conclude that dynamic interactions between clinicians, radiologists, and pathologists improve interobserver agreement and diagnostic confidence.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1164/rccm.200402-147oc

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 673

Metadata

Authors
Flaherty, K. R., King, T. E., Raghu, G., Lynch, J. P., Colby, T. V., Travis, W. D., Gross, B. H., Kazerooni, E. A., Toews, G. B., Long, Q., Murray, S., Lama, V. N., Gay, S. E., & Martinez, F. J.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
2004-10-15
Volume
170
Issue
8
Pages
904-910
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W2166267091
Cited by
673
References
1
FWCI
15.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Idiopathic Interstitial Pneumonia: What Is the Effect of a Multidisciplinary Approach to Diagnosis? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/rccm.200402-147oc
The paper
Flaherty, K. R., King, T. E., Raghu, G., Lynch, J. P., Colby, T. V., Travis, W. D., Gross, B. H., Kazerooni, E. A., Toews, G. B., Long, Q., Murray, S., Lama, V. N., Gay, S. E., & Martinez, F. J. (2004). Idiopathic Interstitial Pneumonia: What Is the Effect of a Multidisciplinary Approach to Diagnosis? American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200402-147oc

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.