Biomedical subjects

B A Teather

Publications and source records attributed to B A Teather.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2000

Structured computer-based training in the interpretation of neuroradiological images.

Computer-based systems may be able to address a recognised need throughout the medical profession for a more structured approach to training. We describe a combined training system for neuroradiology, the MR Tutor that differs from previous approaches to computer-assisted training in radiology in that it provides case-based tuition whereby the system and user communicate in terms of a well-founded Image Description Language. The system implements a novel method of visualisation and interaction with a library of fully described cases utilising statistical models of similarity, typicality and disease categorisation of cases. We describe the rationale, knowledge representation and design of the system, and provide a formative evaluation of its usability and effectiveness.

Artificial Intelligence↗

PubMed2000

Statistical support for uncertainty in radiological diagnosis.

Radiological interpretation and diagnosis involves the comparison and classification of complex medical images and is typical of the categorisation tasks that have been the subject of observational studies in Cognitive Science. This paper considers the affinity between statistical modelling and theories of categorisation for naturally occurring categories. Statistical based measures of similarity and typicality with a probabilistic interpretation are derived. The utilisation of these measures in the support of diagnosis under uncertainty via interactive overview plots is described. The application of the methodology to magnetic resonance imaging of the head is considered. The methods detailed have application to other fields involving archiving and retrieving of image data.

Decision Support Techniques↗

PubMed1990

Comparing the cost of spinal MR with conventional myelography and radiculography.

All spinal magnetic resonance imaging examinations carried out during a three month period were analysed retrospectively in order to determine the clinical reasons for the scan requests. Technical details of the examinations they received and the clinical profiles formed a data set which revealed 10 separate "Clinical groups" for management purposes. Hardware, salary and expendables were costed as though the imaging unit had been sited within a National Health Service radiology department. A spread sheet was designed capable of calculating costs per patient for a variety of types of working week and of different staffing structures, sensitive to the mixture of clinical groups referred for examination. The spreadsheet also accomodated straight line depreciation for hardware value and interest rates for borrowed capital. A second, prospectively observed, sample of spinal MR examinations was used to improve the accuracy of the timing of the length of patient examinations. Costs were compared with those for patients submitted for myelography and radiculography at the adjacent hospital during the same period. The comparison indicated that spinal MR was less costly than myelography and radiculography. The most important element of the extra cost of myelography related to the need to admit patients to hospital for at least one night for this examination because of the likelihood of headache and other common (though usually minor) complications following lumbar puncture and/or the injection of contrast medium. From the limited information that it was possible to obtain in the period of follow up, it appeared that MR had either been superior or equivalent to myelography or radiculography in all the clinical groups of patients where both could be tested. There were a number of groups in which no myelograms had been requested, presumably because clinical suspicions had pointed toward conditions like tumours, developmental abnormalities and demyelinating diseases in which neurologists and neurosurgeons have already made up their minds about the superiority of MR.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

PubMed1988

Evaluation of computer advisor in the interpretation of CT images of the head.

This paper describes the evaluation of a computer advisor system (BRAINS), which was constructed to aid in the interpretation of CT images of the head. It was developed at the National Hospital for Nervous Diseases, Queen Square, London. The system was transferred, without difficulty, to an 'external', that is previously unassociated, site (the Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Manchester) for an external evaluation. Response of external users to the system was mixed. Many were unfamiliar with the concept of formal description of images and the evaluation demonstrated the need for a person to person training programme. Users who accessed the HELP facilities most frequently were the most successful in obtaining accurate descriptions and hence satisfactory diagnostic advice. An objective appraisal of user's success in describing images to obtain the correct diagnosis as first choice indicated that, in general, the system performed well.

Brain Diseases↗

PubMed1988

Towards an advisor for MRI.

This paper discusses the role of a computer advisor in MR image acquisition, interpretation and the diagnosis of cerebral disease. The development of an image and statistical database for use in providing advice is described.

Brain Diseases↗