The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Radiology's Achilles' heel: error and variation in the interpretation of the Röntgen image.
Abstract
The performance of the human eye and brain has failed to keep pace with the enormous technical progress in the first full century of radiology. Errors and variations in interpretation now represent the weakest aspect of clinical imaging. Those interpretations which differ from the consensus view of a panel of "experts" may be regarded as errors; where experts fail to achieve consensus, differing reports are regarded as "observer variation". Errors arise from poor technique, failures of perception, lack of knowledge and misjudgments. Observer variation is substantial and should be taken into account when different diagnostic methods are compared; in many cases the difference between observers outweighs the difference between techniques. Strategies for reducing error include attention to viewing conditions, training of the observers, availability of previous films and relevant clinical data, dual or multiple reporting, standardization of terminology and report format, and assistance from computers. Digital acquisition and display will probably not affect observer variation but the performance of radiologists, as measured by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, may be improved by computer-directed search for specific image features. Other current developments show that where image features can be comprehensively described, computer analysis can replace the perception function of the observer, whilst the function of interpretation can in some cases be performed better by artificial neural networks. However, computer-assisted diagnosis is still in its infancy and complete replacement of the human observer is as yet a remote possibility.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales
Cohen, J. (1960) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316446002000104 · Cited by 42,398
Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences
Bevington, P. R., Robinson, D. K., Blair, J. M., Mallinckrodt, A. J., & McKay, S. (1993) · Computers in Physics · doi:10.1063/1.4823194 · Cited by 14,824
Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters.
Fleiss, J. L. (1971) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0031619 · Cited by 8,733
ROC Methodology in Radiologic Imaging
METZ, C. E. (1986) · Investigative Radiology · doi:10.1097/00004424-198609000-00009 · Cited by 1,642
ROC Analysis Applied to the Evaluation of Medical Imaging Techniques
SWETS, J. A. (1979) · Investigative Radiology · doi:10.1097/00004424-197903000-00002 · Cited by 699
Sidor, M. L., Zuckerman, J. D., Lyon, T., Koval, K., Cuomo, F., & Schoenberg, N. (1993) · The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery · doi:10.2106/00004623-199312000-00002 · Cited by 455
Visual Scanning, Pattern Recognition and Decision-making in Pulmonary Nodule Detection
Kundel, H. L., Nodine, C. F., & Carmody, D. (1978) · Investigative Radiology · doi:10.1097/00004424-197805000-00001 · Cited by 448
Wu, Y., Giger, M. L., Doi, K., Vyborny, C. J., Schmidt, R. A., & Metz, C. E. (1993) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.187.1.8451441 · Cited by 421
CHAN, H.-P., DOI, K., VYBRONY, C. J., SCHMIDT, R. A., METZ, C. E., LAM, K. L., OGURA, T., WU, Y., & MACMAHON, H. (1990) · Investigative Radiology · doi:10.1097/00004424-199010000-00006 · Cited by 359
Cited by
Empirical Study on Applications of Data Mining Techniques in Healthcare
Kaur, H., & Wasan, S. K. (2006) · Journal of Computer Science · doi:10.3844/jcssp.2006.194.200 · Cited by 233
The influence of clinical information on the reporting of CT by radiologists.
Leslie, A., Jones, A. J., & Goddard, P. R. (2000) · The British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/bjr.73.874.11271897 · Cited by 172
Cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation
Johnson, A. J., Chen, M. Y. M., Swan, J. S., Applegate, K. E., & Littenberg, B. (2009) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2531090138 · Cited by 139
Improving the radiologist-CAD interaction: designing for appropriate trust
Jorritsma, W., Cnossen, F., & van Ooijen, P. M. A. (2015) · Clinical Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.crad.2014.09.017 · Cited by 61
Pitfalls in Chest Radiographic Interpretation: Blind Spots
de Groot, P. M., Carter, B. W., Abbott, G. F., & Wu, C. C. (2015) · Seminars in Roentgenology · doi:10.1053/j.ro.2015.01.008 · Cited by 44
Metadata
- Authors
- Robinson, P. J.
- Venue
- The British Journal of Radiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1997-11-01
- Volume
- 70
- Issue
- 839
- Pages
- 1085-1098
- ISSN
- 0007-1285 (ISSN-L)
- 1748-880X
- OpenAlex
- W2101504901
- Cited by
- 320
- References
- 58
- FWCI
- 7.94
- 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: Radiology's Achilles' heel: error and variation in the interpretation of the Röntgen image. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1259/bjr.70.839.9536897
- The paper
- Robinson, P. J. (1997). Radiology's Achilles' heel: error and variation in the interpretation of the Röntgen image. The British Journal of Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.70.839.9536897
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.