Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0032273 (pneumoconiosis)
 1,578 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

The 60-film set was developed by experts (Expert Group) for examining 8 indices: sensitivity (X(1)) and specificity (X(2)) for pneumoconiosis, sensitivity(X(3)) and specificity for (X(4)) large opacities, sensitivity (X(5)) and specificity (X(6)) for pleural plaque, profusion increment consistency for small opacities (X(7)), and shape differentiation for small opacities (X(8)) of physicians' reading skills on pneumoconiosis X-ray according to ILO 2000 Classification. The aim of this study was to assess the appropriateness of the exam film set for evaluating physicians' reading skills. 29 physicians (A1-Group) and 24 physicians (A2-Group) attended the 1st and 2nd "Asian Intensive Reader of Pneumoconioses" (AIR Pneumo) training course, respectively, and 22 physicians (B-Group) attended Brazilian training course. After training, they took examination of reading 60-film exam set. The examinees' reading results in terms of 8 indices were compared between the examinee groups and the Expert Group by parametric unpaired t-test. The Examinee Group consisting of A1-Group, A2-Group and B-Group was inferior to the Expert Group in all indices. There was no significant difference for X(7) of A1-Group, X(7) and X(8) of A2-Group (p>0.05) compared with the Expert Group. There was a significant difference in X(8) at p<0.05 between A1-Group and A2-Group, in X(3) at p<0.05 between A1-Group and B-Group, in both X(1) and in X(3) at p<0.05 between A2-Group and B-Group. Accordingly, the 60-film set providing 8 indices designed might be a good method for evaluation of the physicians' reading proficiency at different training settings.
 ...
PMID:The 60-film set with 8-index for examining physicians' proficiency in reading pneumoconiosis chest X-rays. 2230 87

29 physicians (A1-Group) and 24 physicians (A2-Group) attending the 1st and 2nd "Asian Intensive Reader of Pneumoconiosis" (AIR Pneumo) training course, respectively, and 22 physicians (B-Group) attending the Brazilian training course took the examination of reading the 60-film set. The objective of the study was firstly to investigate the factor structure of physicians' proficiency of reading pneumoconiosis chest X-ray, and secondly to examine differences in factor scores between groups. Reading results in terms of the 8-index of all examinees (Examinee Group) were subjected to the exploratory factor analysis. A 4-factor was analyzed to structure the 8-index: the specificity for pneumoconiosis, specificity for large opacities, specificity for pleural plaque and shape differentiation for small opacities loaded on the Factor 1; the sensitivity for pneumoconiosis and sensitivity for large opacities loaded on the Factor 2; the sensitivity for pleural plaque loaded on the Factor 3; the profusion increment consistency loaded on the Factor 4. 4-Factor scores were compared between each other of the three groups. The Factor 2 scores in A1 and A2 groups were significantly higher than in B-Group. Four factors could reflect four aspects of reading proficiency of pneumoconiosis X-ray, and it was suggested that 4-factor scores could also assess the attained skills appropriately.
 ...
PMID:Proficiency in reading pneumoconiosis radiographs examined by the 60-film set with 4-factor structuring 8-index. 2249 28

Two hundred and thirty-three individuals read chest x-ray images (CXR) in the Asian Intensive Reader of Pneumoconiosis (AIR Pneumo) workshop. Their proficiency in reading CXR for pneumoconiosis was calculated using eight indices (X1-X8), as follows: sensitivity (X1) and specificity (X2) for pneumoconiosis; sensitivity (X3) and specificity (X4) for large opacities; sensitivity (X5) and specificity (X6) for pleural plaques; profusion increment consistency (X7); and consistency for shape differentiation (X8). For these eight indices, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Scheffe's multiple comparison were conducted on six groups, based on the participants' specialty: radiology, respiratory medicine, industrial medicine, public health, general internal medicine, and miscellaneous physicians. Our analysis revealed that radiologists had a significant difference in the mean scores of X3, X5, and X8, compared with those of all groups, excluding radiologists. In the factor analysis, X1, X3, X5, X7, and X8 constituted Factor 1, and X2, X4, and X6 constituted Factor 2. With regard to the factor scores of the six participant groups, the mean scores of Factor 1 of the radiologists were significantly higher than those of all groups, excluding radiologists. The two factors and the eight indices may be used to appropriately assess specialists' proficiency in reading CXR.
 ...
PMID:Assessment of physicians' proficiency in reading chest radiographs for pneumoconiosis, based on a 60-film examination set with two factors constituting eight indices. 2980 18