PubMed · 9706762
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J Hughes, D K Hatsukami. 1998. Errors in using tobacco withdrawal scale.. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.7.1.92a
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
PURPOSE: Computer-assisted methods to analyze electronic portal images for the presence of treatment setup errors should be studied in controlled experiments before use in the clinical setting. Validation experiments using images that contain known errors usually report the smallest errors that can be detected by the image analysis algorithm. This paper offers human error-detection thresholds as one benchmark for evaluating the smallest errors detected by algorithms. Unfortunately, reliable data are lacking describing human performance. The most rigorous benchmarks for human performance are obtained under conditions that favor error detection. To establish such benchmarks, controlled observer studies were carried out to determine the thresholds of detectability for in-plane and out-of-plane translation and rotation setup errors introduced into digitally reconstructed portal radiographs (DRPRs) of prostate fields. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Seventeen observers comprising radiation oncologists, radiation oncology residents, physicists, and therapy students participated in a two-alternative forced choice experiment involving 378 DRPRs computed using the National Library of Medicine Visible Human data sets. An observer viewed three images at a time displayed on adjacent computer monitors. Each image triplet included a reference digitally reconstructed radiograph displayed on the central monitor and two DRPRs displayed on the flanking monitors. One DRPR was error free. The other DRPR contained a known in-plane or out-of-plane error in the placement of the treatment field over a target region in the pelvis. The range for each type of error was determined from pilot observer studies based on a Probit model for error detection. The smallest errors approached the limit of human visual capability. The observer was told what kind of error was introduced, and was asked to choose the DRPR that contained the error. Observer decisions were recorded and analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: The thresholds of detectability averaged over all observers were approximately 2.5 mm for in-plane translations, 1.6 degrees for in-plane rotations, 1 degrees for out-of-plane rotations, and 8% change in magnification for out-of-plane translations along the central axis. When one inexperienced observer is excluded, the average threshold for change in magnification is 5%. Experienced observers tended to perform better, but differences between groups were not statistically significant. Thresholds were computed as averages over all observers. Because of the broad range of observer capabilities, some detection tasks were too difficult for some observers, leading to missing threshold values in our data analysis. The missing values were excluded from computation of the average thresholds reported above. The effect of the missing values is to bias the average values toward the best human performance. CONCLUSIONS: Under favorable conditions, humans can detect small errors in setup geometry. The thresholds for error detection reported in this study are believed to represent rigorous but reasonable benchmarks that can be incorporated into studies evaluating algorithms for computer-assisted detection of setup errors in electronic portal images.
Envenomations by the brown recluse spider have been reported throughout North America, despite the fact that the spider's range is limited to the South and central Midwest of the United States. Several of these medical reports have originated from regions of nonendemicity where the spider has never or rarely been documented and brown recluse spider populations are unknown. In most of these reports, no spider is positively identified in association with the dermonecrotic wound, and diagnosis has been based on clinical examination findings. Considering the extreme rarity of brown recluse spiders in areas of nonendemicity, the diagnosis of a presumptive bite is a misdiagnosis that reinforces the assumption that brown recluse spiders are common local etiologic agents of necrosis. There are many medical conditions of diverse origin that have been misdiagnosed as brown recluse spider bites, some of which can be fatal or debilitating. Physicians' awareness of these conditions will increase diagnostic accuracy in areas of North America where bites from brown recluse spiders are improbable.