Difference between revisions of "Template:Article of the week"

From LIMSWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Updated article of the week text.)
(Updated article of the week text.)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig1 Cai DataScienceJournal2015 14.png|240px]]</div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig1 Cervin JofPathInfo2016 7.jpg|240px]]</div>
'''"[[Journal:The challenges of data quality and data quality assessment in the big data era|The challenges of data quality and data quality assessment in the big data era]]"'''
'''"[[Journal:Improving the creation and reporting of structured findings during digital pathology review|Improving the creation and reporting of structured findings during digital pathology review]]"'''


High-quality data are the precondition for analyzing and using big data and for guaranteeing the value of the data. Currently, comprehensive analysis and research of quality standards and quality assessment methods for big data are lacking. First, this paper summarizes reviews of data quality research. Second, this paper analyzes the data characteristics of the big data environment, presents quality challenges faced by big data, and formulates a hierarchical data quality framework from the perspective of data users. This framework consists of big data quality dimensions, quality characteristics, and quality indexes. Finally, on the basis of this framework, this paper constructs a dynamic assessment process for data quality. This process has good expansibility and adaptability and can meet the needs of big data quality assessment. The research results enrich the theoretical scope of big data and lay a solid foundation for the future by establishing an assessment model and studying evaluation algorithms. ('''[[Journal:The challenges of data quality and data quality assessment in the big data era|Full article...]]''')<br />
Today, pathology reporting consists of many separate tasks, carried out by multiple people. Common tasks include dictation during case review, transcription, verification of the transcription, report distribution, and reporting the key findings to follow-up registries. Introduction of digital workstations makes it possible to remove some of these tasks and simplify others. This study describes the work presented at the Nordic Symposium on Digital Pathology 2015, in Linköping, Sweden.
 
We explored the possibility of having a digital tool that simplifies image review by assisting note-taking, and with minimal extra effort, populates a structured report. Thus, our prototype sees reporting as an activity interleaved with image review rather than a separate final step. We created an interface to collect, sort, and display findings for the most common reporting needs, such as tumor size, grading, and scoring. ('''[[Journal:Improving the creation and reporting of structured findings during digital pathology review|Full article...]]''')<br />
<br />
<br />
''Recently featured'':  
''Recently featured'':  
: ▪ [[Journal:The challenges of data quality and data quality assessment in the big data era|The challenges of data quality and data quality assessment in the big data era]]
: ▪ [[Journal:Water, water, everywhere: Defining and assessing data sharing in academia|Water, water, everywhere: Defining and assessing data sharing in academia]]
: ▪ [[Journal:Water, water, everywhere: Defining and assessing data sharing in academia|Water, water, everywhere: Defining and assessing data sharing in academia]]
: ▪ [[Journal:Principles and application of LIMS in mouse clinics|Principles and application of LIMS in mouse clinics]]
: ▪ [[Journal:Principles and application of LIMS in mouse clinics|Principles and application of LIMS in mouse clinics]]
: ▪ [[Journal:Multilevel classification of security concerns in cloud computing|Multilevel classification of security concerns in cloud computing]]

Revision as of 19:06, 17 October 2016

Fig1 Cervin JofPathInfo2016 7.jpg

"Improving the creation and reporting of structured findings during digital pathology review"

Today, pathology reporting consists of many separate tasks, carried out by multiple people. Common tasks include dictation during case review, transcription, verification of the transcription, report distribution, and reporting the key findings to follow-up registries. Introduction of digital workstations makes it possible to remove some of these tasks and simplify others. This study describes the work presented at the Nordic Symposium on Digital Pathology 2015, in Linköping, Sweden.

We explored the possibility of having a digital tool that simplifies image review by assisting note-taking, and with minimal extra effort, populates a structured report. Thus, our prototype sees reporting as an activity interleaved with image review rather than a separate final step. We created an interface to collect, sort, and display findings for the most common reporting needs, such as tumor size, grading, and scoring. (Full article...)

Recently featured:

▪ The challenges of data quality and data quality assessment in the big data era
▪ Water, water, everywhere: Defining and assessing data sharing in academia
▪ Principles and application of LIMS in mouse clinics
Retrieved from "https://www.limswiki.org/index.php?title=Template:Article_of_the_week&oldid=28181"