Author: William
R. Oliver, M.D.
Abstract:
This report presents the results of the
original methodology for evaluating the effect of image processing and image
quality on the ability of forensic pathologists to accurately interpret images
of patterned injury of the skin, and then describes revisions and results of
the methodology due to findings from the initial study design.
The initial study design consisted of three
surveys: the first to be a collection of "classic" images that most
pathologists would diagnose with high consensus (baseline survey); the second
to consist of degraded images with lesser resolution poorer composition, etc.,
to determine how degradation affected diagnostic consensus; and the third
presenting images treated with various enhancement techniques (primarily
contrast improvements) to determine whether any benefit was gained.
Surprisingly, the first survey produced a median of only 74 percent consensus.
This led to a modification of the remaining
surveys to determine the reason for the unexpectedly low consensus for the
first survey. The second survey was modified to query respondents about why
they did not reach what was thought to be an obvious consensus; and the third
survey tested the effect of providing history and context for the observed
injuries.
The second survey indicated that the primary
reason participants did not join the consensus interpretation was due to
perceived ambiguity due to the lack of a history.
An analysis of the third survey demonstrated
the importance of context and history in forensic pathologic diagnosis. When
provided with history, consensus rose to approximately 98 percent per question
(median value) for the matching subset of the first survey.
No comments:
Post a Comment