CMIO has an article from two radiologists discussing the problems and benefits of modern imaging reconstruction systems. Previously, non-technical radiologists had to suffer through difficult 3D reconstruction tools to convert scans into usable 3D models suitable for analysis by experts. As they typically did not have the computer skills or the time to do it, the work was usually done by Technologists under the watchful guidance of a radiologists.
But as the images have become more advanced, the processing and reconstruction of those images demands greater skill and specialization. The process itself, argued Reuben Mezrich, MD, PhD, of the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, is an iterative process that often requires a radiologist’s knowledge of anatomy and skill in interpretation to accurately reproduce the image.
However, increasingly the process is being done via completely automated algorithms for segmentation and surface reconstruction.
In a rebuttal, Mezrich expressed an additional concern: that radiologists would risk losing ground to other specialties if they cease to perform reconstructions. A technologist who renders standardized images could then pass the studies on to specialists who claim enough experience to diagnose the patients themselves.
“If it will be a technologist, or perhaps even the clinician who creates the 3D image, one might ask what the added value of the radiologist is in the interpretation,” Mezrich wrote. Just as reading ultrasound has moved into the hands of urologists, obstetricians and cardiologists, so would radiologists lose turf to other specialties in advanced visualization.
Personally I favor the automated reconstruction over the human reconstruction, as it’s less likely to be influenced by personal bias and pick up only what is actually in the data. Even in the arguments of relying too heavily on a computer, I think I’ld trust it for this situation. What do you think?
