{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02564102564102564, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01048951048951049, 'mean_word_length': 5.983739837398374, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Improving performance by multiple interpretations of chest radiographs: effectiveness and cost.

The accuracy and cost of four methods of duplicate reading were evaluated. Eight radiologists interpreted 100 random chest radiographs. Using a third independent interpretation to resolve disagreements between pairs of readers ("Pseudoarbitration") was the most effective method overall, reducing errors 37%, increasing correct interpretations 18%, and adding 19% to the cost of an error-free interpretation. Resolving disagreements in facor of positive diagnoses was the best method for reducing omissions, but it almost doubled false-positive diagnoses. The choice between single and multiple interpretations must be evaluated in each clinical setting and should consider expected improvements in accuracy, implications for patient care, and additional costs.