Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Evaluation of a method that supports pathology report coding.

A Hasman1, L M de Bruijn, J W Arends

  • 1Department of Medical Informatics, University of Maastricht, The Netherlands. hasman@mi.unimaas.nl

Methods of Information in Medicine
|September 13, 2001
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

IMIA Accreditation of Biomedical and Health Informatics Education: Current State and Future Directions.

Yearbook of medical informatics·2017
Same author

Quality of health care: informatics foundations.

Yearbook of medical informatics·2016
Same author

Image and Signal Processing.

Yearbook of medical informatics·2016
Same author

Education and Research at the Department of Medical Informatics Maastricht.

Yearbook of medical informatics·2016
Same author

Computer-Aided Diagnosis of Abdominal Pain. (Reflections on F.T. De Dombal et al.'s paper: Computer-Aided Diagnosis of Acute Abdominal Pain).

Yearbook of medical informatics·2016
Same author

Computer supported patient management.

Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine·2014
Same journal

Design and methodological development of a digital clinical safety training programme informed by a national framework: a New Zealand case study.

Methods of information in medicine·2026
Same journal

Panic Prediction from Digital Phenotyping: Subject-Level Cross-Validation Reveals Limited Between-Person Generalization.

Methods of information in medicine·2026
Same journal

Agent-Based Modeling Approach for Population Dynamics of the Biological Vector Aedes Aegypti.

Methods of information in medicine·2026
Same journal

A Statistical Framework for Person-centered Analysis of Digital Service Use in Public Health and Social Care.

Methods of information in medicine·2026
Same journal

Assessing the Quality of Electronic Discharge Summaries: A Cross-Sectional Study Using the Validated Spanish Version of the PDQI-9.

Methods of information in medicine·2026
Same journal

A Knowledge Graph-Driven Hypergeometric Efficacy Prediction Model for Classical Traditional Chinese Herbal Formulas.

Methods of information in medicine·2026
See all related articles

Pathologist agreement in coding reports using SNOMED was fair. A new system offered helpful suggestions, improving coding uniformity but not enabling fully automatic coding.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Informatics
  • Pathology Reporting
  • Clinical Terminology

Background:

  • Accurate coding of pathology reports is crucial for data standardization and analysis.
  • The Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine (SNOMED) is a widely used medical terminology.
  • Evaluating the consistency of pathology report coding and the efficacy of supportive systems is essential.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To assess inter-pathologist agreement in SNOMED coding of pathology reports.
  • To evaluate the performance of a novel system designed to assist pathologists in coding.
  • To determine the adequacy of using three pathologists for establishing a gold standard in coding evaluation.

Main Methods:

  • Six groups of three pathologists each coded 40 pathology reports.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Inter-rater reliability was assessed using kappa values and reliability coefficients.
  • A system was evaluated that uses word vectors to compare new reports with a coded library, suggesting SNOMED codes.

    • Main Results:

    • Average inter-pathologist agreement (kappa) was fair at 0.44.
    • Reliability coefficients ranged from 0.81 to 0.89 across report sets.
    • The supportive system provided correct suggestions for 50% of reports and was helpful in an additional 30%.

    Conclusions:

    • Three pathologists are sufficient to establish a gold standard for system evaluation.
    • The current report comparison method is insufficient for fully automated coding.
    • The system demonstrated potential to enhance coding uniformity among pathologists, with room for performance improvement.