Split (1)

train · 208 rows

annotator string	type string	ground_truth string	prediction2 string	annotation2 string	prediction3 string	annotation3 string	prediction1 string	annotation1 string	images_path string
Roger	findings	Portable chest shows no change in the left subclavian catheter with its tip just reaching the superior vena cava, an electronic device over the left hemithorax with its leads terminating in the left neck. Heart and lungs are within normal limits. Otherwise, there is no change from the prior examination.	Left subclavian vascular catheter terminates in the lower superior vena cava, with no visible pneumothorax. Cardiomediastinal contours are normal. Lungs are clear except for minimal linear atelectasis at the left base.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Left subclavian vascular catheter terminates in the region of the junction of the left brachiocephalic vein and superior vena cava, with no visible pneumothorax. Cardiomediastinal contours are normal. Lungs are clear except for linear atelectasis at the right base. Healed left rib fractures are incidentally noted.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Single frontal view of the chest demonstrates a left anterior chest wall dual lead cardiac pacemaker. The cardiac silhouette is within normal limits. The lungs are clear bilaterally. The visualized bony structures are unremarkable.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	valid/patient64730/study1/view1_frontal.jpg
Roger	findings	The cardiopulmonary silhouette is markedly widened. Although the study is limited by rotation, pericardial effusion cannot be excluded. The lungs show low volume. There is increased prominence of pulmonary vessels bilaterally and increased opacities of both lung fields suggestive for pulmonary edema. No gross abnormalities are noted in the bone or soft tissue.	Cardiac silhouette is markedly enlarged, and accompanied by pulmonary vascular congestion and diffuse interstitial edema. No confluent areas of consolidation are evident to suggest the presence of pneumonia, but standard PA and lateral chest radiographs may be helpful for more complete evaluation of the lungs when the patient's condition allows.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Dr. ___ was paged to discuss the findings on ___ at 8:15 a.m. at the time of dictation of this report, findings had already been discussed with Dr. ___. Marked cardiomegaly is accompanied by pulmonary vascular congestion and moderate pulmonary edema. No confluent areas of consolidation are evident to suggest the presence of pneumonia, but standard PA and lateral chest radiographs may be helpful for more complete assessment of the lungs when the patient's condition permits.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	The cardiac silhouette is enlarged. There is diffuse bilateral reticular opacities with indistinctness of the pulmonary vasculature. No pleural effusions. The bones and soft tissues are unremarkable.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	valid/patient64698/study1/view1_frontal.jpg
Roger	findings	Interval development of moderate bilateral pleural effusions. The heart size remains enlarged, and evaluation is partially obscured by the mildly elevated left hemidiaphragm. Pulmonary vasculature is indistinct, and findings are compatible with mild pulmonary edema. Bibasilar opacities likely also reflect compressive orifices from the bilateral pleural effusions. Fiducial markers projecting over the left lung apex are redemonstrated, with underlying nodule compatible with lesion treated pulmonary malignancy.	single frontal view of the chest obtained 3 - 20 - 2013 at 1555 hours demonstrates stable positioning of the left upper extremity picc. redemonstration of small bilateral pleural effusions and bibasilar opacities. stable cardiomediastinal silhouette. subsequent single frontal view of the chest obtained 3 - 20 - 2013 at 1707 hours demonstrates interval intubation with the tip of the endotracheal tube projecting approximately 2. 5 cm above the carina. interval development of a right pleural effusion with increased right basilar opacity. stable left pleural effusion. interval increase in pulmonary edema.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Cardiomediastinal contours are within normal limits allowing for rotation related to a history of prior esophagectomy and gastric pull-through. Lung volumes are low, and patchy and linear opacities are present at the bases, most likely representing atelectasis. Aspiration and infectious pneumonia are additional considerations, and followup radiographs may be helpful in this regard. Small pleural effusions are also noted.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 4 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Single frontal view of the chest from 12/29/2017 at 1:26 p.m. demonstrates interval placement of a left upper extremity PICC line with its tip located 3.5 cm below the carina. There is no evidence of pneumothorax. There are persistent bibasilar opacities with bilateral pleural effusions. There has been interval increase in the left retrocardiac opacity which may represent atelectasis versus consolidation. There continues to be mild pulmonary edema. A second frontal chest x-ray from 29 december at 5:51 a.m	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 2 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	valid/patient64690/study1/view1_frontal.jpg
Roger	findings	4/2/2018 at 2019: Endotracheal tube terminates 5.2 cm above the carina. Left chest wall port terminates in the left brachiocephalic vein. NG/OG tube tip is within the stomach. Cardiomediastinal silhouette is normal in size. Lung volumes are low with bibasilar opacities likely reflecting atelectasis or aspiration. Pneumoperitoneum seen on prior CT not visualized in this study. 4-2-18 at 2125: Right IJ central venous catheter terminates 2.2 cm below the level the carina. Persistent bibasilar opacities. No pneumothorax.	Tip of endotracheal tube terminates 4.5 cm above the carina, and a nasogastric tube terminates within the stomach. Cardiac silhouette is upper limits of normal in size, and accompanied by pulmonary vascular congestion and minimal interstitial edema. Worsening left retrocardiac opacity may reflect atelectasis, aspiration, or infectious pneumonia. Small left pleural effusion is present, but there is no visible pneumothorax. Dr. ___ was successfully paged to discuss this finding at 8:30 a.m. on ___ at the time of discovery.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Tip of endotracheal tube terminates 4.5 cm above the carina, and a nasogastric tube courses below the diaphragm. Left-sided chest tube is in place, with no visible pneumothorax. Cardiac silhouette is mildly enlarged and accompanied by pulmonary vascular congestion and minimal interstitial edema. Persistent left retrocardiac atelectasis and small left pleural effusion.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 2 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Single frontal view of the chest from 12/20/21 at 1:42 p.m. demonstrates interval placement of a left-sided chest tube with no definite pneumothorax identified. There is a small amount of subcutaneous gas within the left chest wall. There are low lung volumes with bibasilar opacities which may represent atelectasis. There has been interval placements of a right internal jugular central venous catheter with its tip in the mid superior vena cava. There continues to be a small left pleural effusion. A second frontal chest x-ray from 2021/12 at 4:52 a.m	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	valid/patient64693/study1/view1_frontal.jpg
Roger	findings	Very low lung volumes are demonstrated. The right hemidiaphragm is elevated. There is a left retrocardiac opacity likely representing atelectasis. However, cannot entirely exclude an infectious process. Would recommend a repeat chest x-ray with deep inspiration is concern for infection. The pulmonary vasculature is grossly unremarkable. There is an incidental finding of a azygous fissure and lobe. Several prominent bowel loops are noted within the abdomen. These are of unknown clinical significance. Correlate clinically. If concern for abdominal pathology, would recommend a dedicated abdominal series.	There is marked elevation of the right hemidiaphragm. There is no focal consolidation, effusion, or pneumothorax. The heart size is normal. The aorta is tortuous and calcified. Mediastinal structures are otherwise unremarkable. The imaged osseous structures are intact. No free air is seen under the diaphragms. Marked gaseous distention of the stomach is noted.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	There is elevation of the right hemidiaphragm. The lung volumes are low bilaterally. The cardiomediastinal size and configuration are within normal limits. The pulmonary vascularity is mildly indistinct. No pleural effusion or pneumothorax is identified. The osseous structures reveal diffuse osteopenia and multilevel degenerative changes of the thoracic spine with anterior bridging osteophytes. Surgical clips are seen in the right upper quadrant of the abdomen, likely related to a cholecystectomy.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	The cardiomediastinal size and configuration are within normal limits. The lung volumes are low bilaterally. The pulmonary vascularity is within normal confines. The lungs are clear of focal air space disease. The demonstrated osseous anatomy is grossly unremarkable.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	valid/patient64585/study1/view1_frontal.jpg
Roger	findings	There is a small 2-mm radiopaque density seen within the left peripheral upper lung zone. This appears calcified and most likely represents old granulomatous disease. However, the patient has a history of melanoma, and comparison with old studies, once they are available, is recommended if there is clinical concern for metastatic disease. The remainder of the lungs are clear without focal air-space consolidation. The cardiomediastinal silhouette appears unremarkable. There is an old healing defect at the left clavicle demonstrated. The remainder of the bones appear unremarkable. Axillary clips seen within the right axilla.	the lungs are clear without focal consolidation. no pleural effusion or pneumothorax is seen. the cardiac and mediastinal silhouettes are unremarkable.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Heart size, mediastinal and hilar contours are normal. Lungs are slightly overexpanded. With the exception of minimal symmetrical apical scarring, lungs are clear. No pleural effusion is evident on this single projection.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	The lungs are clear. The cardiomediastinal silhouette is within normal limits. No pleural effusion is identified.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	valid/patient64615/study1/view2_lateral.jpg
Roger	findings	As compared to previous radiograph, the patient has been extubated. Otherwise, there is no relevant change. The bilateral massive parenchymal opacities are constant, constant moderate cardiomegaly.	In comparison with the earlier study of this date, there has been placement of a left subclavian catheter that extends to the right atrium. Continued enlargement of the cardiac silhouette with pulmonary vascular congestion and diffuse bilateral pulmonary opacifications most likely reflecting pulmonary edema. However, in the appropriate clinical setting, supervening pneumonia would have to be considered.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Cardiac silhouette is enlarged. Pulmonary vascular congestion is accompanied by asymmetrically distributed perihilar and basilar predominant airspace opacities, affecting the left lung to a greater degree than the right. Small pleural effusions are also demonstrated.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	As compared to the previous radiograph, there is no relevant change. Extensive bilateral parenchymal opacities, right more than left, with moderate cardiomegaly and signs of mild-to-moderate fluid overload. No larger pleural effusions. No pneumothorax.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10439781/s53567394/5eae8395-ea7af71c-6d518498-6d193886-1c2d0853.jpg
Roger	findings	A portable supine frontal chest radiograph demonstrates a right internal jugular catheter, which now terminates in the low SVC. Lung volumes remain low, without definite focal consolidation, pleural effusion, or pneumothorax.	Lung volumes are low, accentuating the cardiac silhouette and bronchovascular structures. With this limitation in mind, heart is upper limits of normal in size, and pulmonary vascularity is normal. Lungs are grossly clear, and there are no pleural effusions or pneumothoraces. Right internal jugular central venous catheter terminates in the lower superior vena cava.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Tip of right internal jugular central venous catheter terminates at the expected junction of the superior vena cava and right atrium, with no visible pneumothorax. Cardiomediastinal contours are within normal limits for technique. Lung volumes are low, with associated crowding of bronchovascular structures. No focal areas of consolidation are present within the lungs, and there are no pleural effusions or acute skeletal findings.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	a left picc terminates in the right atrium. the lung volumes are low. there is no focal consolidation, pleural effusion or pneumothorax. the heart size is normal. the imaged upper abdomen is unremarkable.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p19/p19907884/s57885384/838d96da-8d9d8d8d-2aacafdf-9f280c96-573b74db.jpg
Roger	findings	Persistent pulmonary opacities, vascular engorgement and septal lines refkect mild pulmonary edema. Small left pleural effusion cannot be excluded. Low lung volumes limit assessment of cardiomediastinal silhouette though the cardiac size appears mildly enlarged.	Lung volumes are low, accentuating the cardiac silhouette and bronchovascular structures. Allowing for this factor, heart is upper limits of normal in size. Aorta is tortuous and calcified. Pulmonary vascular congestion is accompanied by mild interstitial edema. No confluent areas of consolidation are evident, and there are no definite pleural effusions. Bones are diffusely demineralized, and note is made of a compression deformity at the thoracolumbar junction, incompletely characterized on this chest radiograph examination.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	In comparison with the study of ___, there is continued enlargement of the cardiac silhouette with pulmonary vascular congestion and bilateral pleural effusions with compressive atelectasis at the bases. In the appropriate clinical setting, supervening pneumonia would have to be considered. Of incidental note is an impression on the right side of the lower cervical trachea, raising the possibility of a thyroid mass. This information was conveyed to Dr. ___.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	the heart size is normal. the hilar and mediastinal contours are normal. there is mild pulmonary vascular congestion. no focal consolidation, pleural effusion or pneumothorax is seen.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p19/p19159236/s55511619/7e424a42-38f2b8c3-7cdac166-95452e5b-2ada132a.jpg
Roger	findings	Except for minimal bibasilar atelectasis, the lungs are clear. Mild cardiac congestionis stable. Cardiac contour is normal. The upper mediastinum appears widened due to the lordotic view. Chest CT in ___ only showed mediastinal fat in this region.	Heart size, mediastinal and hilar contours are normal. Patchy opacities are present at both lung bases, and could be due to patchy atelectasis, aspiration, or early pneumonia. Followup PA and lateral radiographs may be helpful for more complete evaluation when the patient's condition permits.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Heart size, mediastinal and hilar contours are normal. Patchy and linear opacities are present at the lung bases, left greater than right, and likely represent atelectasis. No focal areas of consolidation are present, and there are no pleural effusions or pneumothoraces. Bones are diffusely demineralized, and note is made of remote healed fracture of the distal right clavicle.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	the heart size is normal. the hilar and mediastinal contours are within normal limits. there is no pneumothorax, focal consolidation, or pleural effusion.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p17/p17720924/s57474951/d958a1d3-977c9fd6-0296ff8d-bf5c5aa9-8894c621.jpg
Roger	findings	The patient is status post median sternotomy and coronary bypass surgery. Heart remains enlarged, and is accompanied by pulmonary vascular congestion. Interval improved aeration at both lung bases with improving atelectasis and decreasing pleural effusions. No new areas of consolidation within either lung.	The patient is status post recent median sternotomy and aortic valve replacement. Cardiomediastinal contours are stable in the postoperative period. Persistent elevation of right hemidiaphragm is accompanied by a small right pleural effusion and adjacent right basilar atelectasis. Mild pulmonary vascular congestion is present, but there is no evidence of pulmonary edema.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	In comparison with the study of ___, the monitoring and support devices are essentially unchanged. Continued enlargement of the cardiac silhouette with bilateral pleural effusions and compressive atelectasis at the bases. There may be mild elevation of pulmonary venous pressure.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	as compared to the previous radiograph, there is no relevant change. the lung volumes remain low. there is moderate cardiomegaly and mild fluid overload. no pleural effusions. no pneumonia. the right internal jugular vein catheter is in unchanged position.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p12/p12952223/s52774948/c383b852-eac5f445-af9853bb-aaadded6-9b28a98c.jpg
Roger	findings	Enteric tube tip is in the mid stomach, new since prior. Improved bilateral perihilar, bibasilar opacities. Sternotomy, valve replacement. Bilateral shoulder arthroplasties. Cardiac pacemaker. Right IJ central line tip near cavoatrial junction. Postoperative changes in the spine, with hardware in place. Degenerative changes spine.	Indwelling support and monitoring devices are in standard position, and cardiomediastinal contours are within normal limits for postoperative status of the patient. Mild pulmonary vascular congestion is accompanied by minimal interstitial edema. Patchy bibasilar opacities probably represent atelectasis. Small left pleural effusion is present, but there is no visible pneumothorax.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 6 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Right internal jugular central venous catheter terminates in the lower superior vena cava, with no visible pneumothorax. Indwelling support and monitoring devices are in standard position, and cardiomediastinal contours are stable allowing for lower lung volumes on the current exam. Mild pulmonary vascular congestion is present, but there is no overt pulmonary edema. Patchy and linear opacities at the lung bases probably represent atelectasis, and note is also made of a questionable small left pleural effusion.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 4 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 2 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	the endotracheal tube terminates 3. 2 cm above the carina. a right internal jugular central venous catheter terminates in the low svc. a left pectoral pacemaker is present with the leads terminating in the right atrium and right ventricle. the patient is status post median sternotomy. the lungs are clear without focal consolidation, pleural effusion or pneumothorax. the pulmonary vasculature is not engorged. the cardiac silhouette is top normal in size. the mediastinal and hilar contours are within normal limits. the patient is status post bilateral shoulder arthroplasties.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p19/p19075045/s58577683/28436719-d87f3ae5-9c69e639-adb91cdf-96771118.jpg,mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p19/p19075045/s58577683/2d0d0cce-dd111287-ec34ac38-90e1c536-17d3bdd9.jpg
Roger	findings	AS COMPARED TO ___, A SWAN-GANZ CATHETER HAS BEEN REMOVED, AND A RIGHT INTERNAL JUGULAR CATHETER TERMINATES DEEP IN THE RIGHT ATRIUM. LUNG VOLUMES ARE LOWER COMPARED TO PRIOR STUDY. DIFFUSE ALVEOLAR PULMONARY EDEMA HAS PROBABLY SLIGHTLY WORSE IN THE INTERVAL, ALTHOUGH LOWER LUNG VOLUMES LIMIT COMPARISON.	1. LINES AND TUBES ARE UNCHANGED. 2. NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN CARDIOPULMONARY STATUS WITH PERSISTENT LARGE LEFT PLEURAL EFFUSION AND ASSOCIATED COMPRESSIVE ATELECTASIS. THE RIGHT LUNG REMAINS CLEAR.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	EDTHE REPORTING PHYSICIAN HAS ALREADY BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE FINDINGS CONCERNING THE PULMONARY EDEMA BY TELEPHONE CALL TO DR. ___ AT ___ ON ___ AT 8:30 AM.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 2 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	as compared to the previous radiograph, the lung volumes have decreased. the pre - existing parenchymal opacities, however, are still clearly visible. the lung volumes remain low. there is no evidence of pleural effusions. borderline size of the cardiac silhouette. unchanged right internal jugular vein catheter.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p19/p19932024/s50370886/fc82e711-14ed01dc-ce2a326a-162251e4-aee54953.jpg
Roger	findings	NO FOCAL CONSOLIDATION IS SEEN. THERE IS MINOR BASILAR ATELECTASIS. NO PLEURAL EFFUSION OR PNEUMOTHORAX. THE CARDIAC AND MEDIASTINAL SILHOUETTES ARE STABLE. LINEAR RADIOPAQUE STRUCTURE PROJECTING OVER THE LEFT HEMIDIAPHRAGM MAY BE EXTERNAL TO THE PATIENT OR SURGICAL CLIPS. ADDITIONAL SURGICAL CLIPS ARE NOTED IN THE LEFT MID HEMITHORAX AND UPPER HEMITHORAX.	The lungs are clear without focal consolidation. No pleural effusion or pneumothorax is seen. The cardiac silhouette is top-normal to mildly enlarged. Mediastinal contours are unremarkable. No pulmonary edema is seen	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Cardiac silhouette is mildly enlarged. Pulmonary vascularity is within normal limits allowing for accentuation by apical lordotic and portable technique. Lungs are grossly clear. Minimal blunting of left lateral costophrenic sulcus is present, and could reflect pleural thickening or small pleural effusion.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	the heart size is mildly enlarged. the mediastinal and hilar contours are unremarkable. the pulmonary vascularity is normal. there is no focal consolidation, pleural effusion or pneumothorax. no acute osseous abnormalities are seen.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p14/p14794396/s54133231/2f40daa6-51dad1b2-e683d1c3-cdf10946-d37ae69f.jpg,mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p14/p14794396/s54133231/7b6d99b9-abd98664-19db4d28-6510c45f-df1bec18.jpg
Roger	findings	PA and lateral chest radiographs were obtained. Diffuse interstitial opacities have progressed since ___. The hila are indistinct. There is a new small left pleural effusion. Moderate cardiomegaly is similar. Aortic arch calcifications are similar. There is a stable convex left thoracic scoliosis. Thoracic vertebral compression fractures and old left clavicle fracture are unchanged.	Cardiomegaly is accompanied by pulmonary vascular congestion and minimal interstitial edema. Small pleural effusions are present bilaterally. Bones are diffusely demineralized, and note is made of scoliosis and degenerative changes in the spine.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Cardiac silhouette is mildly enlarged and accompanied by pulmonary vascular congestion and minimal interstitial edema. No confluent areas of consolidation are identified within the lungs, and there are no pleural effusions. Bones are diffusely demineralized, and multilevel degenerative changes are present in the thoracic spine.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	the heart is mildly enlarged. the aorta is tortuous. there is mild pulmonary edema. no focal consolidation, pleural effusion or pneumothorax is seen.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p13/p13475033/s52606958/55339975-113cd016-3378dc51-976067bf-8b4e471f.jpg,mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p13/p13475033/s52606958/c9fff184-4c819069-e151edf5-6591caae-9a76e8f0.jpg
Roger	impression	1.INCREASED PROMINENCE OF THE INTERSTITIAL MARKINGS, WHICH MAY REFLECT EDEMA OR INFECTION.	1. no evidence of pneumonia. 2. stable cardiomegaly.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1.FRONTAL AND LATERAL RADIOGRAPHS OF THE CHEST DEMONSTRATE A NORMAL CARDIOMEDIASTINAL SILHOUETTE. 2.LUNGS ARE CLEAR WITHOUT FOCAL CONSOLIDATION. NO PNEUMOTHORAX, NO PLEURAL EFFUSIONS. 3.VISUALIZED OSSEOUS STRUCTURES AND SOFT TISSUES UNREMARKABLE.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. SINGLE FRONTAL VIEW OF THE CHEST DEMONSTRATES LOW LUNG VOLUMES WITH INTERVAL DEVELOPMENT OF MILD PULMONARY EDEMA. 2. STABLE APPEARANCE OF MULTIPLE LEFT AXILLARY CLIPS.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	valid/patient64589/study1/view2_lateral.jpg
Roger	impression	1. RETROCARDIAC OPACITY CONSISTENT WITH ATELECTASIS VERSUS CONSOLIDATION. 2. SMALL LEFT PLEURAL EFFUSION.	1. SINGLE UPRIGHT AP VIEW OF THE CHEST DEMONSTRATES CARDIOMEGALY WITH NO SIGNIFICANT PULMONARY EDEMA. 2. SMALL BILATERAL PLEURAL EFFUSIONS AND RETROCARDIAC OPACITY, WHICH MAY REFLECT ATELECTASIS VERSUS INFECTION OR ASPIRATION.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. single frontal view of the chest demonstrates interval development of a left lower lobe opacity, which may represent atelectasis, consolidation, or aspiration. 2. the right lung remains clear. 3. the cardiomediastinal silhouette is stable in configuration with mild cardiomegaly.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. SINGLE UPRIGHT AP VIEW OF THE CHEST DEMONSTRATES CARDIOMEGALY WITH NO EVIDENCE OF PULMONARY EDEMA. 2. SMALL LEFT PLEURAL EFFUSION WITH INTERVAL IMPROVED AERATION OF THE RETROCARDIAC AREA.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	valid/patient64624/study1/view1_frontal.jpg
Roger	impression	1. Residual mild pulmonary edema and left basilar opacity. "Physician to Physician Radiology Consult Line: (898) 940-4661" Signed	1. Interval postsurgical changes with placement of lines and support devices as described above. 2. Mild pulmonary edema. 3. Bibasilar opacities, left greater than right, which may represent atelectasis or consolidation. 4. Small left pleural effusion. I have personally reviewed the images for this examination and agreed with the report transcribed above.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 4 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. interval placement of a left ij approach swan - ganz catheter with tip in the right pulmonary artery. 2. interval placement of a left ij approach central venous catheter, which terminates at the confluence of the left subclavian and left brachiocephalic veins. 3. no pneumothorax. 4. mild pulmonary edema. i have personally reviewed the images for this examination and agreed with the report transcribed above.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 2 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. Interval placement of a right-sided pigtail pleural drain with decreased size of right pleural effusion. 2. Persistent left basilar opacity, which may represent atelectasis or consolidation. 3. Mild pulmonary edema. I have personally reviewed the images for this examination and agreed with the report transcribed above.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 2 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1	valid/patient64661/study1/view1_frontal.jpg
Roger	impression	1. RIGHT UPPER LOBE PARTIAL CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE POSSIBLY ACUTE PROCESS HOWEVER THE FINDINGS APPEAR CHRONIC. EARLIER STUDIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE.	1. 2. no evidence of pneumothorax. 3. stable small left pleural effusion. 4. stable cardiomediastinal silhouette. 5. no bony changes.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN CARDIOPULMONARY STATUS WITH PERSISTENT LARGE RIGHT PLEURAL EFFUSION WITH ASSOCIATED COMPRESSIVE ATELECTASIS OF THE RIGHT LUNG. 2. REDEMONSTRATION OF DIFFUSE RETICULAR NODULAR OPACITIES THROUGHOUT BOTH LUNGS, RIGHT GREATER THAN LEFT, WHICH MAY REPRESENT LYMPHANGITIC CARCINOMATOSIS VERSUS METASTATIC DISEASE. RECOMMEND CLINICAL CORRELATION AND FURTHER EVALUATION WITH CROSS-SECTIONAL IMAGING AS INDICATED. 3. STABLE CALCIFIED GRANULOMA IN THE LEFT LOWER LOBE. 4. NO EVIDENCE OF PNEUMOTHORAX. 5. NO ACUTE OSSEOUS ABNORMALITY.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 4 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. 2. NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN CARDIOPULMONARY STATUS WITH PERSISTENT RIGHT UPPER LOBE OPACITY, RIGHT PLEURAL EFFUSION, AND LEFT PLEUROPARENCHYMAL SCARRING.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	valid/patient64583/study1/view1_frontal.jpg
Roger	impression	1.INTERVAL REMOVAL OF LEFT IJ CATHETER. REMAINDER OF SUPPORT HARDWARE IS STABLE. 2.STABLE MILD CARDIOMEGALY AND INTERSTITIAL EDEMA. 3.STABLE LEFT COSTOPHRENIC ANGLE OPACITY.	1. single frontal radiograph of the chest demonstrates stable appearance of left upper extremity picc line, median sternotomy wires, and lvad. 2. lungs demonstrate persistent left basilar opacity, likely reflecting atelectasis or consolidation. no pleural effusions. no pneumothorax. 3. visualized osseous structures and soft tissues unremarkable.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. SINGLE FRONTAL VIEW OF THE CHEST DEMONSTRATES STABLE POSITIONING OF THE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT AND STABLE POSTSURGICAL CHANGES WITHIN THE MEDIASTINUM. NO EVIDENCE OF PNEUMOTHORAX. 2. UNCHANGED APPEARANCE OF SMALL BILATERAL PLEURAL EFFUSIONS AND BIBASILAR OPACITIES, LEFT GREATER THAN RIGHT. 3. THE CARDIOMEDIASTINAL SILHOUETTE IS STABLE IN CONFIGURATION, AND MILD PULMONARY EDEMA PERSISTS.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. Interval placement of a left-sided chest tube with decreased size of a now small left pleural effusion. 2. Persistent left basilar opacity, likely reflecting atelectasis. 3. Mild pulmonary edema. I have personally reviewed the images for this examination and agreed with the report transcribed above.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1	valid/patient64610/study1/view1_frontal.jpg
Roger	impression	Normal heart size and pulmonary vascularity. No focal consolidation, pleural effusion, or pneumothorax. Multilevel spine degenerative changes with flowing osteophytosis in a pattern suggestive of DISH.	1. SINGLE FRONTAL VIEW OF THE CHEST DEMONSTRATES CLEAR LUNGS WITHOUT FOCAL CONSOLIDATION, PLEURAL EFFUSIONS, OR PNEUMOTHORAX. 2. THE CARDIOMEDIASTINAL SILHOUETTE AND PULMONARY VASCULATURE ARE WITHIN NORMAL LIMITS. 3. VISUALIZED OSSEOUS STRUCTURES ARE INTACT.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. no focal consolidation. no pleural effusion. no pneumothorax. 2. normal cardiomediastinal silhouette. 3. normal osseous and soft tissue structures.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. No acute cardiopulmonary process. 2. No evidence of pneumonia.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	valid/patient64551/study1/view1_frontal.jpg
Roger	impression	1. REDEMONSTRATION OF RIGHT SUBCLAVIAN CENTRAL LINE, UNCHANGED. 2. MILD INTERSTITIAL PULMONARY EDEMA. 3. LOW LUNG VOLUMES 4. MILD CARDIOMEGALY. 5. LIMITED LATERAL VIEWS SECONDARY TO RESPIRATORY MOTION.	1. CARDIOMEDIASTINAL SILHOUETTE IS WITHIN NORMAL LIMITS. 2. LUNGS ARE CLEAR WITHOUT EDEMA, EFFUSION, OR FOCAL OPACITY. NO PNEUMOTHORAX. 3. NO GROSS OSSEOUS DEFORMITY.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. no evidence of focal consolidation or other acute intrathoracic disease. 2. right subclavian central venous catheter with tip in the mid superior vena cava. no pneumothorax.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. LIMITED STUDY SECONDARY TO PATIENT POSITIONING. 2. NO DEFINITE FOCAL CONSOLIDATION. 3. REDEMONSTRATION OF MULTIPLE LEFT SIDED RIB FRACTURES.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 4 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	valid/patient64705/study1/view1_frontal.jpg
Roger	impression	1.SEMIUPRIGHT FRONTAL CHEST RADIOGRAPH DEMONSTRATES A STABLE LEFT PLEURAL PIGTAIL DRAIN. 2.LOW LUNG VOLUMES, LEFT RETROCARDIAC OPACITY AND CALCIFIED BILATERAL AXILLARY LYMPH NODES ARE AGAIN SEEN WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT INTERVAL CHANGE. 3.NO DEFINITE PNEUMOTHORAX.	1.SINGLE FRONTAL VIEW OF THE CHEST DEMONSTRATES STABLE POSITIONING OF THE RIGHT UPPER EXTREMITY PICC LINE AND LEFT PLEURAL PIGTAIL CATHETER. THERE IS A PERSISTENT SMALL LEFT APICAL PNEUMOTHORAX. 3.STABLE REDEMONSTRATION OF LOW LUNG VOLUMES AND RETROCARDIAC OPACITY. 4.THE CARDIOMEDIASTINAL SILHOUETTE AND PULMONARY VASCULATURE ARE UNREMARKABLE. 5.SEVERE DEGENERATIVE CHANGES ARE AGAIN SEEN IN THE BILATERAL SHOULDERS.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. interval placement of a left pleural pigtail catheter with a tiny left apical pneumothorax. 2. interval decrease in size of a left pleural effusion. 3. persistent left retrocardiac opacity, which may represent atelectasis or consolidation. i have personally reviewed the images for this examination and agreed with the report transcribed above.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1.SINGLE FRONTAL VIEW OF THE CHEST DEMONSTRATES STABLE POSITIONING OF THE RIGHT UPPER EXTREMITY PICC LINE AND LEFT PLEURAL PIGTAIL CATHETER. 2.THERE IS A PERSISTENT SMALL LEFT APICAL PNEUMOTHORAX. 3.REDEMONSTRATION OF A DENSE RETROCARDIAC OPACITY AND SMA SMAL LEFT PERIHILAR OPACITIES.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	valid/patient64691/study1/view1_frontal.jpg
Roger	impression	1. Increased interstitial markings can represent endobronchial spread of infection versus a component of edema. 2. No pneumothorax. I have personally reviewed the images for this examination and agreed with the report transcribed above.	1. mild pulmonary edema. 2. mild cardiomegaly. 3. no focal consolidation. i have personally reviewed the images for this examination and agreed with the report transcribed above.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. Mild pulmonary edema with small bilateral pleural effusions. 2. Bibasilar opacities may reflect atelectasis or consolidation. I have personally reviewed the images for this examination and agreed with the report transcribed above.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. Mild pulmonary edema. 2. Bibasilar opacities, which may represent atelectasis or consolidation. 3. Small bilateral pleural effusions. I have personally reviewed the images for this examination and agreed with the report transcribed above.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	valid/patient64642/study1/view1_frontal.jpg
Roger	impression	1.AP CHEST RADIOGRAPH SHOWS UNREMARKABLE CORD MEDIASTINAL SILHOUETTE AND BILATERAL LUNG FIELDS. 2.INTERVAL PLACEMENT OF THE LEFT-SIDED CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETER WITH TIP AT THE ATRIAL CAVAL JUNCTION. NO EVIDENCE OF PNEUMOTHORAX. 3.A RIGHT BREAST PROSTHESIS IN PLACE.	1. FRONTAL RADIOGRAPH OF THE CHEST DEMONSTRATES INTERVAL PLACEMENT OF A LEFT INTERNAL JUGULAR CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETER WITH DISTAL TIP IN THE MID SUPERIOR VENA CAVA. NO PNEUMOTHORAX. 2. RIGHT BREAST IMPLANT. 3. LOW LUNG VOLUMES. NO FOCAL CONSOLIDATION. 4. NORMAL CARDIOMEDIASTINAL SILHOUETTE. 5. VISUALIZED OSSEOUS STRUCTURES ARE UNREMARKABLE. 6. CHOLECYSTECTOMY CLIPS IN THE RIGHT UPPER QUADRANT.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. single frontal view of the chest demonstrates a left chest wall mediport with tip in the mid svc. 2. the cardiomediastinal silhouette is within normal limits. 3. there is a small right apical pneumothorax. 4. the lungs are otherwise clear without focal consolidation, effusion, or edema.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1.SINGLE FRONTAL VIEW OF THE CHEST DEMONSTRATES INTERVAL PLACEMENT OF A RIGHT CHESTRWALL PORT WITH THE TIP PROJECTING OVER THE CAVOATRIAL JUNCTION. 2.NO EVIDENCE OF PNEUMOTHORAX. 3.INTERVAL DEVELOPMENT OF A SMALL RIGHT PLEURAL EFFUSION. 4.STABLE CARDIOMEDIASTINAL SILHOUETTE.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	valid/patient64553/study1/view1_frontal.jpg
Roger	impression	1.NEW LEFT SUBCLAVIAN LINE WITH THE TIP OVERLYING THE MID SUPERIOR VENA CAVA. CONSIDER REPOSITIONING AS TIP APPEARS TO BE UP AGAINST WALL OF SVC. 2.UNREMARKABLE CARDIOMEDIASTINUM. 3.LOWER LUNG VOLUMES. BIBASILAR OPACITIES, RIGHT GREATER THAN LEFT. NO PNEUMOTHORAX.	1.SINGLE PORTABLE SEMIUPRIGHT AP VIEW OF THE CHEST DEMONSTRATES A LEFT SUBCLAVIAN CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETER WITH THE TIP IN THE PROXIMAL SUPERIOR VENA CAVA. NO PNEUMOTHORAX IS IDENTIFIED. 2.LOW LUNG VOLUMES WITH BIBASILAR OPACITIES, LEFT GREATER THAN RIGHT, WHICH MAY REFLECT ATELECTASIS, INFECTION OR ASPIRATION. 3.SMALL BILATERAL PLEURAL EFFUSIONS. 4.MILD PROMINENCE OF THE CARDIOMEDIASTINAL SILHOUETTE.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. interval placement of a left subclavian central venous catheter with the tip in the superior vena cava. no pneumothorax. 2. low lung volumes. 3. mild bibasilar opacities. 4. no pleural effusions.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1.SINGLE FRONTAL VIEW OF THE CHEST DEMONSTRATES INTERVAL PLACEMENT OF A LEFT SUBCLAVIAN CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETER WITH ITS TIP PROJECTING OVER THE EXPECTED REGION OF THE SUPERIOR VENA CAVA. NO PNEUMOTHORAX. 2.LOW LUNG VOLUMES WITH BIBASILAR OPACITIES, LIKELY REFLECTING ATELECTASIS. 3.ST	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 2 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1	valid/patient64671/study1/view1_frontal.jpg
Roger	impression	1.UNCHANGED TEAR FEEDING TUBE WITH ITS TIP AT THE LIGAMENT OF TREITZ. 2.UNCHANGED STERNAL SUTURE WIRES AND COLONIC INTERPOSITION. 3.PERSISTENT RIGHT GREATER THAN LEFT EFFUSIONS WITH BIBASILAR OPACITIES WHICH LIKELY REFLECT ATELECTASIS. 4.MILD PULMONARY EDEMA. 5.REDEMONSTRATED OSTEOPENIA AND DEGENERATIVE CHANGES OF THE SHOULDERS.	1. PORTABLE SEMI-UPRIGHT CHEST RADIOGRAPH DEMONSTRATES: 2. STABLE POSITION OF LINES AND SUPPORT DEVICES 3. SMALL BILATERAL PLEURAL EFFUSIONS 4. BIBASILAR OPACITIES, ATELECTASIS VERSUS CONSOLIDATION 5. VISUALIZED BONES AND SOFT TISSUES ARE UNREMARKABLE. 6. CARDIOMEDIASTINAL SILHOUETTE WITHIN NORMAL LIMITS.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 4 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. single frontal view of the chest demonstrates stable postsurgical changes within the mediastinum. 2. interval development of a small right pleural effusion. the lungs appear otherwise clear. 3. the cardiomediastinal silhouette is stable in configuration with redemonstration of a tortuous thoracic aorta.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 4 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. SINGLE FRONTAL RADIOGRAPH OF THE CHEST DEMONSTRATES INTERVAL PLACEMENT OF A RIGHT INTERNAL JUGULAR CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETER WITH TIP IN THE MID SUPERIOR VENA CAVA. NO PNEUMOTHORAX. 2. LUNGS DEMONTRATE PERSISTENT BIBASILAR OPACITIES, RIGHT GREATER THAN LEFT. NO SIGNIFICANT PLEURAL	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 4 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	valid/patient64636/study1/view1_frontal.jpg
Roger	impression	1. INTERVAL INSERTION OF ENDOTRACHEAL TUBE, TIP OF WHICH IS AT THE CARINA. IT SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN 3CM. PERSISTENT RIGHT PLEURAL EFFUSION AND LEFT LOWER LUNG ZONE CONSOLIDATION, UNCHANGED FROM PRIOR. RESULTS OF STUDY WERE DISCUSSED WITH Amber, Mcumber OF THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT ON 8/8/2005 AT 1700 HOURS.	1. endotracheal tube tip is at the level of the t3 vertebral body. 2. there is a right pleural effusion with right lower lobe atelectasis versus consolidation. 3. there is mild pulmonary edema.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. INTERVAL PLACEMENT OF AN ENDOTRACHEAL TUBE WITH THE TIP APPROXIMATELY 4 CM ABOVE THE CARINA. 2. REDEMONSTRATION OF RIGHT PLEURAL EFFUSION AND RIGHT LOWER LOBE ATELECTASIS VERSUS CONSOLIDATION. 3. MILD PULMONARY EDEMA. 4. CARDIOMEDIASTINAL SILHOUETTE WITHIN NORMAL LIMITS FOR SIZE AND UNCHANGED IN APPEARANCE. 5. STERNOTOMY WIRES AND MEDIASTINAL CLIPS CONSISTENT WITH HISTORY OF CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT. 6. REGIONAL OSSEOUS SOFT TISSUE STRUCTURES ARE GROSSLY UNREMARKABLE. 7. NO EVIDENCE OF PNEUMOTHORAX.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 4 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. ENDOTRACHEAL TUBE TIP IS AT THE LEVEL OF THE CLAVICLES. 2. THERE IS A RIGHT PLEURAL EFFUSION WITH ASSOCIATED RIGHT BASILAR ATELECTASIS. 3. THIS MAY REPRESENT PULMONARY EDEMA VERSUS INFECTION.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	valid/patient64603/study1/view1_frontal.jpg
Roger	impression	1. Moderate alveolar pulmonary edema, with small-to-moderate bilateral pleural effusions. Bibasilar pulmonary opacities are nonspecific, and may reflect atelectasis versus less likely consolidation. 2. Moderate cardiomegaly. There are no substantial differences between the preliminary results and the impressions in this final report. "Physician to Physician Radiology Consult Line: (559) 745-1823" Signed	1. Bibasilar parenchymal opacities consistent with atelectasis, infection, or aspiration. 2. Small bilateral pleural effusions. 3. Mild pulmonary edema. "Physician to Physician Radiology Consult Line: (223) 260-8762" I have personally reviewed the images for this examination and agreed with the report transcribed above.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. mild pulmonary edema with small bilateral pleural effusions. 2. bibasilar opacities, which may represent atelectasis or consolidation. i have personally reviewed the images for this examination and agreed with the report transcribed above.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. Interval development of mild pulmonary edema. 2. Bibasilar opacities, which may represent atelectasis or consolidation. 3. Small bilateral pleural effusions. I have personally reviewed the images for this examination and agreed with the report transcribed above.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 2 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1	valid/patient64650/study1/view1_frontal.jpg
Roger	impression	1. PA AND LATERAL UPRIGHT VIEWS OF THE CHEST DEMONSTRATE STABLE POSITIONING OF A TUNNELED RIGHT INTERNAL JUGULAR CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETER. 2. INTERVAL DEVELOPMENT OF A DIFFUSE RETICULAR PATTERN AT THE LUNGS, AS WELL AS SMALL BILATERAL PLEURAL EFFUSIONS. THIS FINDING MAY REFLECT INTERVAL DEVELOPMENT OF MILD INTERSTITIAL PULMONARY EDEMA. HOWEVER, ATYPICAL INFECTION MAY HAVE A SIMILAR APPEARANCE. RECOMMEND CLINICAL CORRELATION.	1. mild pulmonary edema. 2. bibasilar opacities, left greater than right, which may represent atelectasis or consolidation. " physician to physician radiology consult line : ( 616 ) 985 - 3791 " signed	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. SINGLE FRONTAL VIEW OF THE CHEST DEMONSTRATES INTERVAL PLACEMENT OF A RIGHT INTERNAL JUGULAR CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETER WITH THE TIP IN THE DISTAL SUPERIOR VENA CAVA. NO EVIDENCE OF PNEUMOTHORAX. 2. THE LUNGS APPEAR CLEAR WITHOUT FOCAL CONSOLIDATION OR PLEURAL EFFUSIONS. 3. THE CARDIOMEDIASTINAL SILHOUETTE AND PULMONARY VASCULATURE ARE UNREMARKABLE. 4. VISUALIZED OSSEOUS STRUCTURES ARE INTACT.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. No acute cardiopulmonary process. 2. Stable appearance of the chest.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 4 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	valid/patient64560/study1/view1_frontal.jpg
Roger	impression	1. Low lung volumes. Increasing right basilar opacity which may represent atelectasis and the presence of low lung volumes though infection or aspiration would be difficult to exclude. Additional persistent dense left retrocardiac opacity with evidence of air bronchograms suggesting consolidation, including pneumonia in the appropriate clinical setting, though there is some improved aeration in the left midlung zone. 2. Decreased left pleural effusion.	1. interval increase in left greater than right basilar opacities, which may represent atelectasis versus consolidation. 2. small left pleural effusion. i have personally reviewed the images for this examination and agreed with the report transcribed above.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. 2. Persistent bibasilar opacities, left greater than right, which may represent atelectasis, aspiration, or consolidation. 3. Small bilateral pleural effusions. "Physician to Physician Radiology Consult Line: (616) 985-3791" I have personally reviewed the images for this examination and agreed with the report transcribed above.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 2 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. Interval increase in left pleural effusion, now moderate in size. 2. Persistent small right pleural. 3. Bibasilar opacities, which may represent atelectasis or consolidation. I have personally reviewed the images for this examination and agreed with the report transcribed above.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1	valid/patient64683/study1/view1_frontal.jpg
Roger	impression	1. SINGLE PORTABLE VIEW OF THE CHEST DEMONSTRATES PERSISTENT RIGHT PLEURAL EFFUSION THAT IS PROBABLY UNCHANGED IN COMPARISON TO THE PRIOR STUDY GIVEN DIFFERENCES IN TECHNIQUE. THERE IS ALSO ADJACENT ATELECTASIS AND/OR CONSOLIDATION. THE REMAINDER OF THE LUNGS IS CLEAR. 2. CARDIOMEDIASTINAL SILHOUETTE IS UNCHANGED. NO ACUTE OSSEOUS ABNORMALITY. 3. THREE VIEWS OF THE ABDOMEN DEMONSTRATE AN UNREMARKABLE BOWEL GAS PATTERN. 4. THERE IS A SUGGESTION OF SLIGHT BLUNTING OF THE LEFT COSTOPHRENIC SULCUS, NOT APPRECIATED AS WELL ON THE CHEST X-RAY WHICH MAY REPRESENT PLEURAL THICKENING OR EFFUSION. 5. FOCAL CALCIFICATION SEEN OVERLYING THE SACRUM IS CONSISTENT WITH CALCIFIED FIBROID SEEN IN THIS LOCATION ON PATIENT'S CT PULMONARY EMBOLISM STUDY FROM 1-16-2006. A CALCIFIED INJECTION GRANULOMA IS ALSO SEEN OVERLYING THE LEFT ILIAC CREST, ALSO SEEN ON THE CT PE STUDY. 6. THERE IS A COMPRESSION FRACTURE OF L1 VERTEBRAL BODY WHICH IS LIKELY DEGENERATIVE IN NATURE, GIVEN THE LACK OF SURROUNDING SOFT TISSUE DENSITY ON THE CT PULMONARY EMBOLISM STUDY.	1. interval development of a moderate right pleural effusion. 2. no evidence of focal consolidation. 3. cardiomediastinal silhouette is stable. 4. no bony abnormality.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	In comparison with the study of ___, there has been a thoracentesis with removal of a substantial amount of pleural fluid from the right hemithorax. No evidence of post procedure pneumothorax or pneumomediastinum. The left lung is clear and there is no evidence of vascular congestion or acute focal pneumonia.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. Small right pleural effusion. 2. No evidence of pneumonia.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	valid/patient64577/study1/view1_frontal.jpg
Roger	impression	No acute intrathoracic process.	1. single frontal view of the chest demonstrates stable positioning of the support equipment. 2. interval improved aeration of the right lung base with persistent small right pleural effusion. 3. the cardiomediastinal silhouette is stable in configuration with mild cardiomegaly.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	AP chest reviewed in the absence of prior chest radiographs: Lungs are low in volume, exaggerating mild cardiomegaly. There is no pulmonary edema or appreciable pleural effusion. No pneumothorax or mediastinal widening.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	No acute cardiopulmonary process.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNCGJXU3EWZX94/GRDN38R23YDOXMDC/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.24165346630978228434674138068447883940/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.16776524039927770674709709079087454845/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.50264807632604205476449715563978065075.png
Roger	impression	Persistent, unchanged pulmonary edema.	1. interval improvement in pulmonary edema. 2. persistent small bilateral pleural effusions.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	In comparison with the study of ___, the patient has taken a better inspiration. Continued enlargement of the cardiac silhouette with mild elevation of pulmonary venous pressure. Blunting of the left costophrenic angle is again seen. No definite acute focal pneumonia, though this would be difficult to unequivocally exclude in the appropriate clinical setting, especially in the absence of a lateral view. Right IJ catheter again extends to the mid to lower portion of the SVC.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 4 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. Right internal jugular central venous catheter tip in the mid SVC. No pneumothorax. 2. Mild pulmonary vascular congestion. 3. Small left pleural effusion.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p16/p16508811/s53845981/0762369f-af8531f3-09fc45b2-f00d90c9-88e6ff7d.jpg,mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p16/p16508811/s53845981/888290a6-cb15d01c-e8f7eea0-2b69aa11-d34b333b.jpg
Roger	impression	Resolving b/l upper lobe pneumonia.	1. no acute cardiopulmonary process. 2. chronic interstitial lung disease.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	In comparison with the study of ___, the patient has taken a better inspiration. The cardiac silhouette is within normal limits and there is no evidence of vascular congestion, pleural effusion, or acute focal pneumonia. There is some asymmetry of opacification in the right upper zone. In the appropriate clinical setting, this could possibly represent an area of developing consolidation.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. No acute cardiopulmonary process. 2. No evidence of pneumonia.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10933609/s52935265/9587ec7a-e6b7082f-0b22b670-b924b608-674375e2.jpg,mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10933609/s52935265/fa29a6c8-729bdd50-764451b7-b92da9bc-daf265ee.jpg
Roger	impression	Pulmonary edema superimposed on known lung fibrosis.	In comparison with the study of ___, there is little overall change. Again there is hyperexpansion of the lungs consistent with chronic pulmonary disease. Cardiac silhouette is at the upper limits of normal or mildly enlarged and there is tortuosity of the aorta. No evidence of acute focal pneumonia or appreciable vascular congestion. Port-A-Cath extends to the mid to lower portion of the SVC.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	low lung volumes with possible mild pulmonary vascular congestion.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. Left Port-A-Cath terminates in the mid SVC. 2. Mild pulmonary edema. 3. Stable mild cardiomegaly.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10439781/s55811525/3ea6406a-214fd5a4-1e6e4b0e-195445b8-1ea913b3.jpg,mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10439781/s55811525/8213973a-4ae791c1-ff080394-69e53e74-8e6d3813.jpg
Roger	impression	Bibasilar atelectasis with decrease in left pleural effusion; no pneumothorax.	ap chest compared to ___ : previous mild pulmonary edema has cleared. small right pleural effusion is new. heart size is normal. right jugular line ends in the mid svc. no pneumothorax.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	As compared to the previous radiograph, the patient has been extubated and the nasogastric tube was removed. The right internal jugular vein catheter is in unchanged position. The lung volumes have increased, likely reflecting improved ventilation. Borderline size of the cardiac silhouette without pulmonary edema. No pleural effusions. No pneumonia, no pneumothorax.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. Right internal jugular central venous catheter tip in the mid SVC. No pneumothorax. 2. Mild bibasilar atelectasis.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p12/p12433421/s53311302/241b6402-15f482d1-da524f5e-92653c29-84172d3d.jpg
Roger	impression	Malposition right internal jugular central venous catheter coursing cephalad within the neck.	1. mild pulmonary edema. 2. no evidence of pneumonia.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. Right internal jugular central venous catheter tip in the mid SVC. No pneumothorax. 2. Mild pulmonary vascular congestion and bibasilar atelectasis. 3. Stable moderate cardiomegaly.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. Right internal jugular central venous catheter tip in the mid SVC. No pneumothorax. 2. Mild pulmonary edema. 3. Malignancy is better assessed on the recent CT.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p14/p14851532/s54675277/33e89953-a3344800-0b12cc28-ae13c39f-f350e654.jpg
Roger	impression	Further postoperative improvement. Followup at somewhat greater time interval may show final resolution.	In comparison with the study of ___, there is little overall change. Again there is a moderate right pleural effusion with compressive atelectasis at the base. The left lung is clear and there is no evidence of vascular congestion or acute focal pneumonia.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. interval decrease in size of right pleural effusion. 2. no pneumothorax.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. Interval decrease in size of right pleural effusion. 2. No pneumothorax.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p18/p18309149/s50546279/89fbc7f3-542fde0d-c914db57-f46e285f-22e70ae1.jpg,mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p18/p18309149/s50546279/8f578d66-1a95b16a-8fce51d0-76b09aea-4f1980ca.jpg
Roger	impression	Hyperinflated lungs without evidence of pneumonia or CHF. Slight mediastinal prominence likely reflects patient's slight leftward rotation.	In comparison with the study of ___, there is little change and no evidence of acute cardiopulmonary disease. Cardiac silhouette is at the upper limits of normal or mildly enlarged and there is tortuosity of the descending aorta. No acute pneumonia, vascular congestion, or pleural effusion. Of incidental note is an azygos fissure, of no clinical significance.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	no acute cardiopulmonary process.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	No acute cardiopulmonary process.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p15/p15612622/s59063233/48a254ba-4d6ccab1-b254dcf7-a7f305bc-9aae746b.jpg,mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p15/p15612622/s59063233/64445cbc-ad80926d-3cf56f35-73f41b87-cdaaf288.jpg
Roger	findings	AP single view of the chest has been obtained with patient in sitting semi-erect position. There exists extensive thickening and calcified scar formations in both apical areas. No evidence of pneumothorax is present. In comparison with the next preceding chest examination of ___, no significant interval change can be identified. The left-sided hilar mass is present as before.	As compared to the previous radiograph, the lung volumes have decreased. As a consequence, there is increased crowding of the vascular and bronchial structures at the lung bases. However, no new parenchymal opacities have occurred in the interval. The size of the cardiac silhouette is unchanged. No pleural effusions. No pneumothorax. Unchanged appearance of the hilar and mediastinal structures.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Heart is upper limits of normal in size. Mild pulmonary vascular congestion is present without overt evidence of pulmonary edema. Left hemidiaphragm is mildly elevated, and accompanied by nonspecific patchy and linear areas of atelectasis at the left lung base. Note is also made of a small left pleural effusion.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	lung volumes are low. heart size is mildly enlarged. the aorta is tortuous and calcified. there is crowding of the bronchovascular structures, but no overt pulmonary edema is demonstrated. patchy opacities in the lung bases likely reflect areas of atelectasis. no pleural effusion or pneumothorax is identified. there are no acute osseous abnormalities.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 5 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p19/p19389041/s56852226/6211c262-9d3215ef-c9ecc9be-dab821ad-94ac069f.jpg
Roger	findings	Frontal and lateral views of the chest. On the current exam, there is no evidence of confluent consolidation. Linear opacities at the left lung base most suggestive of scarring. Icreased interstitial markings are seen compatible chronic underlying lung disease, not significantly changed since ___. Trace bilateral effusions. Cardiac silhouette is enlarged and also notable for a prosthetic aortic valve. No acute osseous abnormality detected.	In comparison with the study of ___, there is little overall change. Continued enlargement of the cardiac silhouette with hyperexpansion of the lungs consistent with chronic pulmonary disease. Opacification at the left base is consistent with atelectasis and effusion. In the appropriate clinical setting, supervening pneumonia would have to be considered. No definite vascular congestion at this time.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	The patient is status post previous median sternotomy and coronary artery bypass surgery. Cardiac silhouette is mildly enlarged. Aorta is tortuous and calcified. Pulmonary vascularity is normal. Linear areas of atelectasis are present in the mid and lower lungs. Small bilateral pleural effusions are also noted. There are no acute osseous abnormalities.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	the patient is status post median sternotomy and cabg. the heart size remains mildly enlarged. the mediastinal and hilar contours are unchanged. there is mild pulmonary vascular congestion. linear opacities in the lung bases are compatible with areas of subsegmental atelectasis. no pleural effusion or pneumothorax is identified. there are no acute osseous abnormalities.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p13/p13606683/s58568223/a3a06d4a-738a23e2-049e6887-d1e5cc2f-c1573666.jpg,mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p13/p13606683/s58568223/78706a51-93862124-f2e96aba-f5e1ca54-2ecbd486.jpg
Roger	findings	In the region of the lingular mass, there is a persistent opacity measuring approximately 6.2 x 5.0 cm and decreased in comparison to the postbiopsy opacity noted in ___ but greater than expected for postoperative hemorrhage at this time and thus raising suspicion for a possible infectious process. Otherwise, the right lung is clear. Mediastinal and cardiac silhouettes appears normal. Osseous structures are grossly unremarkable.	Heart size, mediastinal and hilar contours are within normal limits. A poorly defined mass measuring about 5.5 cm in diameter is present in the left mid lung region, and lungs are otherwise clear. No pleural effusion. Left clavicular fracture is noted.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	There is a focal area of consolidation in the left lower lobe consistent with pneumonia. The right lung is clear. The heart is normal in size. The aorta is mildly tortuous. Mediastinal structures are otherwise unremarkable. The bony thorax is grossly intact. Surgical clips are noted in the right upper quadrant of the abdomen consistent with prior cholecystectomy.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	there is a large left lower lobe consolidation consistent with pneumonia. there is no pleural effusion or pneumothorax. the cardiomediastinal silhouette is within normal limits. the imaged upper abdomen is unremarkable. the bones are intact.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p16/p16435402/s56116675/d439d39d-cacf925c-2737a0f6-204add42-44e8cd99.jpg,mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p16/p16435402/s56116675/cbe3bc41-e94a672f-5fdd94a6-aa2446b0-e821a444.jpg
Roger	findings	In comparison with study of ___, the PICC extends only to the left brachiocephalic vein before its junction with the superior vena cava. Continued low lung volumes may account for some of the prominence of the transverse diameter of the heart. Bibasilar opacification most likely reflects atelectatic changes. Possibility of supervening pneumonia would have to be considered in the appropriate clinical setting. The pulmonary vascular congestion is less prominent than on the prior study.	Tracheostomy tube is in standard position, and a left PICC terminates in the mid superior vena cava. Cardiac silhouette is mildly enlarged and accompanied by pulmonary vascular congestion and minimal interstitial edema. More confluent opacities at the lung bases could reflect dependent edema, aspiration, or atelectasis. Small pleural effusions are present, left greater than right, but there is no visible pneumothorax. Dr. ___ was successfully paged to discuss these findings at 8:30 a.m. on ___ at the time of discovery.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 4 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Tracheostomy tube is in standard position, and cardiomediastinal contours are within normal limits for technique. Pulmonary vascular congestion is accompanied by mild-to-moderate pulmonary edema. More confluent opacities in the right infrahilar and left retrocardiac regions may reflect dependent edema and atelectasis, but aspiration and infectious pneumonia are also possible in the appropriate clinical setting. Small pleural effusions are present bilaterally.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 4 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	the heart is normal in size. the mediastinal and hilar contours appear within normal limits. there is no pleural effusion or pneumothorax. the lungs appear clear.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 4 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 2 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10268877/s55785509/2b68ac0e-611f3a5f-ddd4047f-97ef55a1-538b75df.jpg
Roger	findings	The heart is normal in size. The aorta is tortuous. Allowing for differences in technique, mediastinal and hilar contours are unremarkable. There is volume loss in the right hemithorax with scarring at the right apex that is presumably post-surgical. Mild chronic-appearing compression deformities are poorly visualized along the upper thoracic spine; although unlikely to represent acute fractures, there may be some increase in the degree of attenuated body heights at one or more levels since the prior CT from several years ago.	The patient is rotated to the right. The lungs are hyperinflated, consistent with emphysema. There is no focal consolidation, pleural effusion or pneumothorax. The aorta is tortuous and calcified. The heart size is normal. The bones are diffusely demineralized. The patient is status post right-sided rib resection.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	PA and lateral views of the chest were obtained. The lungs are hyperinflated with flattening of the diaphragms and increased retrosternal airspace, compatible with COPD. There is no focal consolidation, effusion, or pneumothorax. Cardiomediastinal silhouette is normal. Multiple right rib deformities are compatible with chronic fractures. There is a right mid clavicular shaft fracture as well as a right distal clavicular fracture, likely chronic.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 4 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	the patient is rotated to the right. the lungs are hyperinflated. there is no focal consolidation, pleural effusion or pneumothorax. the heart is normal in size. there is no pulmonary edema.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p16/p16622813/s53002522/901ff9da-8c7918cf-2c1642f7-2db14f83-c386dfe5.jpg,mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p16/p16622813/s53002522/f54d71e9-cb078a0e-41326b2e-d8a5e132-77b9f33a.jpg
Roger	findings	When compared to prior, there has been no significant interval change. Lungs are grossly clear. There is no large effusion or edema. Cardiomediastinal silhouette is within normal limits. Rightward deviation of the trachea at the thoracic inlet is compatible with known underlying left-sided thyroid enlargement. Surgical clips seen projecting over the thoracic inlet. Left chest wall dual lumen central venous catheter is now seen. Multiple vascular stents project over the left upper extremity and mediastinum. Severe degenerative changes noted at the shoulders bilaterally. Old healed right posterior rib fractures are also noted.	AP portable upright view of the chest. Left chest wall dialysis catheter is seen with its tip in the region of the right atrium. The heart is mildly enlarged. There is no focal consolidation, effusion, or pneumothorax. The cardiomediastinal silhouette is normal. Imaged osseous structures are intact. No free air below the right hemidiaphragm is seen.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	There is streaky density at the lung bases consistent with subsegmental atelectasis or scarring. The lungs are otherwise clear. The heart is at the upper limit of normal in size. The aorta is calcified. Mediastinal structures are otherwise unremarkable. The bony thorax is grossly intact. A dialysis catheter is present, terminating in the right atrium.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	left - sided dual lumen central venous catheter tip terminates in the proximal right atrium. heart size is normal. the aorta is tortuous and diffusely calcified. mediastinal and hilar contours are otherwise unremarkable. pulmonary vasculature is not engorged. lungs are clear without focal consolidation. no pleural effusion or pneumothorax is present. mild degenerative changes are seen in the thoracic spine.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 2 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p14/p14236258/s59438963/099dc924-692466a3-cd889469-1d9dee6c-3a61f779.jpg,mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p14/p14236258/s59438963/6196e104-b79ccd0c-14251271-51dad87b-ef6297d4.jpg,mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p14/p14236258/s59438963/d2ae1900-b7a31dd8-3a7ff502-08e62dd6-51dfb0e5.jpg
Roger	findings	PA and lateral chest views were obtained with patient in upright position. Analysis is performed in direct comparison with the next preceding similar chest examination ___ ___. There is status post sternotomy and aortic valve replacement identifying the metallic components of a porcine aortic valve stenosis in place. These findings are rather unchanged. The heart size has increased slightly. No typical new configurational abnormality can be identified. The pulmonary vasculature is not congested, nor is there evidence. Marked left atrial enlargement when comparing the posterior cardiac wall in relation to the aortic valve prosthesis on the lateral view. The pulmonary vasculature is not congested. On the other hand, the pulmonary vasculature shows again the previously described marked irregular peripheral distribution that coincides with low positioned and flattened diaphragms. Marked increase of chest diameter in depth is noted on the lateral view and related to a markedly increased kyphotic curvature with multiple wedge compressed vertebral bodies in the mid portion of the thoracic spine. As before, one sees multiple peripheral small linear densities and areas of increased translucency rather typical for advanced COPD. Comparison with the next preceding study ___ ___ does not disclose any new discrete parenchymal infiltrate. Also, the lateral and posterior pleural sinuses remain free from any significant fluid accumulation. Bilateral apical pleural thickenings are again seen and have not undergone any significant interval change. Multiple rib deformities as before indicative of previously sustained local rib fractures. Comparison with the next preceding chest examination demonstrates on the frontal view increase of the heart shadow. This coincides also with a more prominent visibility of the azygos vein in the right tracheobronchial angulation. Thus, these findings could suggest a volume increase of the right ventricle and thereto related elevated right-sided filling pressure, a suggestion which matches information that the would recommend the performance of an echocardiogram to look for possible right ventricular strain, tricuspid incompetence and elevated right-sided filling pressure. patient has developed new pedal edema. To confirm this suspicion,an echocardiograM could be helpful. No acute new parenchymal infiltrates in these advanced findings of of COPD.No evidence of pulmonary venous congestion.	In comparison with the study of ___, there is little overall change. Again there is hyperexpansion of the lungs with flattening of the hemidiaphragms consistent with chronic pulmonary disease. Cardiac silhouette is within normal limits and there is no evidence of acute focal pneumonia or vascular congestion. Blunting of the left costophrenic angle could reflect pleural thickening or small effusion.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	The patient is status post previous median sternotomy and aortic valve replacement. Heart size is normal. Aorta is tortuous and calcified. Lungs are hyperinflated with biapical bulla, flattened hemidiaphragms, and increased AP diameter, consistent with COPD. No focal areas of consolidation are present within the lungs, and there are no pleural effusions. Bones are diffusely demineralized, and note is made of scoliosis and degenerative changes in the spine.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	the patient is status post median sternotomy and coronary artery bypass surgery. heart size is normal. the mediastinal and hilar contours are normal. the pulmonary vasculature is normal. lungs are clear. no pleural effusion or pneumothorax is seen. there are no acute osseous abnormalities.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 9 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 2 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p17/p17392550/s53641457/6029ba23-5d73e768-c1fe417b-73eb330f-9c507e77.jpg,mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p17/p17392550/s53641457/c08e8ebb-14a3a1f0-0da1ea4e-1b2412fb-f2d4da54.jpg
Roger	findings	Midline trachea. Normal heart size and mediastinal contours. Sharp costophrenic angles. No pneumothorax. Clear lungs.	there is a left subclavian central venous catheter with the tip in the mid svc. there is no evidence of pneumothorax. there is a small left pleural effusion. there is a left retrocardiac opacity, which may represent atelectasis or pneumonia. there is no evidence of pulmonary edema. the cardiomediastinal silhouette is unremarkable.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Cardiomediastinal contours are within normal limits for technique. Lungs are clear. There are no focal consolidations, pleural effusions or pneumothorax.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	the heart is normal in size. the mediastinal and hilar contours appear within normal limits. there is no pleural effusion or pneumothorax. the lungs appear clear.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNDHIOWELTAWKO/GRDNMVZV2FMCNKH5/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.45394508368819635396029875813526682557/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.92859158488324791031811615288923580897/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.11546367684662246995023154986568374877.png,ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNDHIOWELTAWKO/GRDNMVZV2FMCNKH5/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.45394508368819635396029875813526682557/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.95495011139742695642956482604143189157/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.37624588637912821550226739088095926040.png
Roger	findings	A right upper extremity PICC has been placed. The tip is at the SVC/right atrial junction. Otherwise, stable.	PA chest demonstrates normal heart size. Lungs are clear. No pleural effusion or pneumothorax. No acute osseous abnormality.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Cardiomedastinal silhouette within normal limits. Pulmonary parenchyma without infiltrates of pathological significance. Costophrenic sinuses are clear. No significant alterations are appreciated in the bone planes included in the study.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	the heart is normal in size. the mediastinal and hilar contours appear within normal limits. there is a persistent small - to - moderate left - sided pleural effusion with associated atelectasis. the left - sided pleural effusion appears unchanged. there is no pneumothorax.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNS6VC0VEZIO3Y/GRDNNV7M4AT0O6DR/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.58576084947390659203853315953789681897/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.62523237360445428860988590233320347116/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.63400879264851361680949049439202675674.png
Roger	findings	Poor inspiration. Borderline enlarged cardiac silhouette. Prominent pulmonary vasculature. Mildly prominent interstitial markings. Minimal bibasilar atelectasis. Unremarkable bones.	Cardiomedastinal silhouette within normal limits. Pulmonary parenchyma without infiltrates of pathological significance. Costophrenic sinuses are clear. No significant alterations are appreciated in the bone planes included in the study.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 5 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	The lungs are clear. There is no evidence of focal consolidation, pleural effusion, pneumothorax, mass, or lymphadenopathy. There are no pleural or parenchymal calcifications. The heart size is normal. The cardiomediastinal silhouette is unremarkable. The trachea is midline and normal in caliber. No acute skeletal abnormalities are seen.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 5 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	A single AP view of the chest demonstrates normal cardiac silhouette. Lungs are clear. No consolidation. No effusion. No pneumothorax. No pulmonary vascular congestion. No acute cardiopulmonary disease.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDN8677QSL6173O/GRDNP7GK4F6CVCHB/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.49555124042554958265839100751254865254/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.13254124264730134913741007636378878629/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.74785290471773690300239739183370807787.png
Roger	findings	Cardiomediastinal silhouette unremarkable for age. Lungs clear. Normal lung volumes. Bronchovascular markings normal. No pleural effusions. Visualized bony thorax intact.	EDTHATTHEIMAGESAREPERFORMEDON ___ AND ___.THECHEST X-RAYSTUDIESHOWNORMALCARDIOMEDIASTINALAND PLEURAL SURFACES WITHOUT FOCAL CONSOLIDATION OR PNEUMOTHORAX.NOTHING IS SEEN TO CAUSE OBSTRUCTION OF THE TRACHEAL LUMEN OR CAUSE MEDIASTINAL ELEVATION. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF PULMONARY EDEMA OR FIBROTHORAX.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	No significant bone alterations are observed in the rib cage. If there is suspicion of fracture, it is recommended to complete with x-rays focused on the area of pain or the area where the clinical symptoms are located.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Heart size is normal. There is a linear area of increased radiodensity in the left retrocardiac region consistent with an area of subsegmental atelectasis. Lungs are otherwise clear.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNJIXJY5RJFU6A/GRDNZ5KX259MP261/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.40481110865172905250467034774072883258/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.68853357634078723315038716329354356581/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.28242953925325362523160283360434457582.png,ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNJIXJY5RJFU6A/GRDNZ5KX259MP261/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.40481110865172905250467034774072883258/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.93901199715909645781720075749337565830/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.73809769100331711967080366250939705500.png
Roger	findings	There is cardiomegaly. Patchy bilateral airspace opacities are again noted. No significant change since prior study. Right central line unchanged.	The lungs are clear to slightly increased interstitial markings. The heart size is normal. No cardiomegaly is identified. The aorta is unremarkable. No pulmonary vascular congestion or edema is seen. No pleural effusions or areas of pleural thickening are identified. No masses, lesions, or nodules are detected.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	the heart size is within normal limits. the mediastinal and hilar contours are normal. the lungs show no consolidation or pulmonary edema. there is a small left pleural effusion. there is no pneumothorax.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	A single portable AP view of the chest is provided. The lungs are clear. No pneumothorax or pleural effusion. The cardiomediastinal silhouette is within normal limits. No acute osseous abnormalities.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 2 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDN58F62HEFNNAR/GRDNMPD4KKB18XMM/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.70845017318917910876941668657400133988/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.25801868240967459162943634303319789306/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.95462115286128959898115154040465986132.png
Roger	findings	Multiple EKG leads overlie the chest, but there appears to be no evidence for active cardiopulmonary disease. Periosseous structures intact in one view.	Cardiomedastinal silhouette within normal limits. Pulmonary parenchyma without infiltrates of pathological significance. Costophrenic sinuses are clear. No significant alterations are appreciated in the bone planes included in the study.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	The chest radiograph is provided by an outside facility. The patient is imaged in the upright position. The lungs are well expanded. Reticulonodular opacities are seen in the right upper lobe, which may represent an infectious or inflammatory process. There is no evidence of mass lesion. No pleural effusion or pneumothorax is seen. The cardiomediastinal silhouette is unremarkable. No acute skeletal abnormalities are detected.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	PA chest demonstrates normal heart size. Lungs are clear. No pleural effusion or pneumothorax. No acute osseous abnormality.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNGC33ZBW0YI0V/GRDNAZRLIZEYWR1C/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.92054601396238658559563527812549338278/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.77737745562030458178776231180254716648/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.66871761244239446724019487423929501111.png
Roger	findings	Bibasilar airspace disease shows mild progression. This could represent pneumonia. Continued followup until clearing suggested. Prior median sternotomy. Negative for heart failure or effusion.	I\nThe lungs are clear. There is no pneumothorax or focal consolidation. There are no pleural effusions. The heart size is 3.5 cm. The aortic knob is unremarkable. The mediastinal contours are normal. The right hilum is normal in size and contour. The left hilum appears slightly prominent, measuring 1.8 cm in craniocaudad dimension and 2.0 cm in transverse dimension. This is slightly larger than normal, but not significantly so.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	No acute focal consolidation, pleural effusion or pneumothorax. There is mild prominence of the pulmonary vasculature which may reflect mild congestive heart failure. No interstitial or alveolar opacities are seen to suggest an acute infectious process. The cardiac silhouette is not enlarged and there is no radiographic evidence of pericardial effusion. The bony thorax is grossly intact. There are no suspicious lytic or sclerotic osseous lesions. No free air is seen within the abdomen. The visualized portions of both kidneys are grossly unremarkable. No renal calcifications are seen. No intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy or hepatic nodularity is detected. No splenomegaly is seen. The stomach is not distended. The bowel gas pattern is nonspecific. No pneumoperitoneum or subdiaphragmatic free air. No air-filled dilated loops of small or large bowel are seen in the visualized portion of the upper abd	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Heart size is normal. No mediastinal widening. Lungs are clear. No acute osseous abnormality.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDN9NTTPLRTIPX6/GRDNT4VKRZTYTMOC/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.39581387798335566208142853638714862259/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.32484128815648090543824196996374389858/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.96503163499162718395517702648371035472.png,ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDN9NTTPLRTIPX6/GRDNT4VKRZTYTMOC/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.39581387798335566208142853638714862259/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.49103611106470564858033223536823497139/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.99410969711055526132728393216051676763.png
Roger	findings	Fluoroscopy was provided for an OR procedure. Examination was performed by Dr. LINE, EVELIN. Please correlate with the procedural report. Fluoroscopy time 1 minute 17 seconds.	The lungs are clear without evidence of pneumonia or pulmonary edema. There is no pleural effusion or pneumothorax. The cardiac silhouette and mediastinal contours are normal. The bony thorax is intact.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	the heart size is normal. the hilar and mediastinal contours are within normal limits. there is no pneumothorax, focal consolidation, or pleural effusion.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	A single AP view of the chest demonstrates normal cardiac silhouette. Lungs are clear. No consolidation. No effusion. No pneumothorax. No pulmonary vascular congestion. No acute cardiopulmonary disease.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNUY5QGRAMSHNV/GRDNYO4RJLOKMWUV/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.41137195311730554777716448864134222323/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.51908155151474984307962743591099666245/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.36363952020598161975392765074145894548.png
Roger	findings	Normal heart size considering portable AP upright radiograph. Calcified tortuous aorta. Mild vascular congestion. No definite consolidation or edema. Subsegmental atelectasis LEFT base. Worsening aeration from priors.	The lungs are clear to some degree. There is no focal consolidation, pneumothorax, or pleural effusion. The heart size is normal. The mediastinum is not widened. The bony structures are grossly normal.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	The lungs are clear without focal consolidation, pleural effusion, or pneumothorax. The cardiac silhouette is normal in size. The mediastinal silhouettes are normal in contour and caliber. The pulmonary vasculature is normal without engorgement. The bony thorax is grossly intact without lytic or sclerotic lesions. There is no free air.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	A single AP view of the chest demonstrates normal cardiac silhouette. Lungs are clear. No consolidation. No effusion. No pneumothorax. No pulmonary vascular congestion. No acute cardiopulmonary disease.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNWZM5SCIJ08LW/GRDNPTEO60O468A1/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.88368926264516128100957901800494201732/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.37313069610227428347934334606993661520/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.35989166192137494002553076066842105196.png
Roger	findings	Left pneumothorax is no larger and may be slightly smaller than seen yesterday, approximately 20%. Pulmonary scarring and pleural plaques on both sides appear the same. No new process.	the heart size is normal. the hilar and mediastinal contours are normal. the lungs are clear without evidence of focal consolidations concerning for pneumonia. there is no pleural effusion or pneumothorax. the visualized osseous structures are unremarkable.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Cardiomedastinal silhouette and lung parenchyma without findings of pathological significance.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Heart size is normal. There is a mild degree of hyperinflation. No acute infiltrates are identified.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 3 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNA9EDC42U2MZR/GRDN3B2OMVGFHTWD/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.92614031567834307758133713395772767535/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.54577403337940981999972767724626743033/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.43793799082732086133313624958449806830.png,ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNA9EDC42U2MZR/GRDN3B2OMVGFHTWD/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.92614031567834307758133713395772767535/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.92362979266849016659483120185977682197/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.26955801881270847247781340894067881329.png
Roger	findings	The patient is being evaluated for possible ingested foreign body. A RIGHT-side down decubitus film is submitted. I do not see evidence of air trapping on the RIGHT. No discrete infiltrate is seen.	The lungs are clear. There is no pleural effusion or pneumothorax. The cardiac silhouette is not enlarged. The mediastinal silhouettes are within normal limits for the patient's age. The pulmonary vasculature is normal. There are no areas of focal consolidation. Compared to the prior study from ___, there is no significant change.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	The chest x-ray is available for review. The patient is positioned upright for this radiograph. The lungs are well expanded. The heart is of normal size. The aorta is slightly tortuous. The trachea is midline. No compression fractures are identified. No rib fractures are seen. There is no evidence of pneumothorax or pneumomediastinum. No free air is seen beneath the right hemidiaphragm. No subdiaphragmatic intra-abdominal air is detected. There are no acute skeletal abnormalities appreciated.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	The heart size is normal. Lung fields are clear.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNK2U4B5F5J9IJ/GRDNS9S6MKP54R9K/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.83156928842544601735151996909299350838/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.42836059955746928026827768829796790955/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.12694469993354193936734198930874839089.png
Roger	findings	COPD/emphysema. Chronic bronchitic type markings. Suspicion for small nodular densities in the left upper lobe, particularly one density measuring approximately 5 x 7 mm. Accentuated thoracic kyphosis and degenerative spondylotic changes. Diffuse osteopenia.	Cardiomedastinal silhouette within normal limits. Pulmonary parenchyma without infiltrates of pathological significance. Costophrenic sinuses are clear. No significant alterations are appreciated in the bone planes included in the study.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 4 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	The lungs are clear and free of consolidation. There is no pleural effusion. The cardiac silhouette is within normal limits. The vascular anatomy is normal. There are no focal stenoses or occlusions. The aorta is normal in contour and caliber. The pulmonary arteries are normal in size and contour. The mediastinal contours and soft tissues are normal. The osseous structures are normal without any lesions or lytic or sclerotic areas. The visualized portion of the upper abdomen is unremarkable without any masses, lesions, or free intraperitoneal fluid. The bilateral acromioclavicular and glenohumeral joints appear normal in alignment and without any degenerative changes or joint space narrowing. The humeral heads are centered in the glenoid fossa, and there is no high-riding or subluxed humeral head. The rotator cuff tendons are intact. The biceps tendon is intact without any tendon rupture or dislocation. The subscapularis and supraspinatus	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 4 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Heart size is normal. No mediastinal widening. Lungs are clear. No acute osseous abnormality.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 5 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNLQJG98XJGYH8/GRDNHVIWA3CC7O54/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.93897684979083095498009466962883312424/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.56700646594605071572823816948015503696/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.69674618423844540230102409762556356432.png,ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNLQJG98XJGYH8/GRDNHVIWA3CC7O54/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.93897684979083095498009466962883312424/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.78910594764209351986232456565642558002/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.72963010418286910289590800642065705498.png
Roger	findings	Moderate cardiomegaly is noted with increased prominence of diffuse interstitial markings, patchy airspace opacities, and trace effusions. Lumbar fusion hardware partly visualized. Bilateral glenohumeral joint degenerative change, with high-riding bilateral humeral heads again noted which may signify rotator cuff tendinopathy.	THEREARENOABNORMALITIES. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF PNEUMOTHORAX. THE CARDIOMEGALY AND MEDIASTINAL ADENOPATHY ARE UNCHANGED SINCE THE PRIOR STUDY. THE PULMONARY EDEMA HAS RESOLVED. THERE ARE NO NEW FOCAL CONSOLIDATIONS OR OPACITIES IN THE LUNGS. THE HEART SIZE IS SLIGHTLY SMALLER THAN PRIOR. THE PATIENT IS STATUS POST CHEMOTHERAPY, AS INDICATED ON PRIOR REPORT, AND CHEST X-RAY IS BEING OBTAINED FOR MONITORING OF TREATMENT EFFECTS AND TO EVALUATE FOR POTENTIAL SECONDARY INFECTION OR PROGRESSION DUE TO THERAPY RELATED SYMPTOMS SUCH AS FIBROSING ALVEOLITIS OR OTHER CHEST TUBING.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	The lungs are clear. The cardiomediastinal silhouette is normal. There is no pleural effusion or pneumothorax. There are no focal consolidations in the lung parenchyma. The findings are compared with the previous examination from ___, which is available electronically. On that examination, bilateral basal parenchymal opacities were seen, which have regressed on today's examination. No new pulmonary abnormalities have occurred in the interval. The most recent chest examination is from ___. At that time, the patient had an acute exacerbation of COPD and was treated with antibiotics and corticosteroids. A followup chest x-ray was performed on ___ and showed regression of the opacifications. The patient was discharged from the hospital on ___. The patient has not been readmitted to the hospital since then. No other relevant findings. No evidence of pneumonia or other acute infectious process.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 4 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Heart size is normal. No mediastinal widening. Lungs are clear. No acute osseous abnormality.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 6 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNLPCOR5OS9FWO/GRDNYZZ3CJXDOFFQ/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.31588399127474243031669487725899147258/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.17260805953361860115523531403730113182/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.66915927834668960953943156143205753586.png,ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNLPCOR5OS9FWO/GRDNYZZ3CJXDOFFQ/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.31588399127474243031669487725899147258/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.21477745804485253968131626993162884774/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.49434231559897832219648720637104366695.png,ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNLPCOR5OS9FWO/GRDNYZZ3CJXDOFFQ/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.31588399127474243031669487725899147258/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.97023207004308827657549310666191701089/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.91436270659884302853142048838314670159.png
Roger	findings	Endotracheal tube terminates 11 mm above the carina. Volume loss in the right hemithorax. Retrocardiac opacity, possibly reflecting a hiatal hernia, although poorly evaluated. Lucency beneath the diaphragm favors a distended gastric bubble. Right shoulder dislocation with deformity, likely chronic. Chronic left clavicle fracture.	there is a left - sided picc line with its tip at the cavoatrial junction. there is a left - sided subclavian line with its tip in the mid svc. there is a right - sided picc line with its tip near the cavoatrial junction. there is a left - sided pleural effusion and left lower lobe consolidation. there is a small right - sided pleural effusion. there is a left - sided pleural effusion. there is a left - sided pleural effusion. there is a left - sided chest tube present. there is a left - sided chest tube present.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 8 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 4 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	The lungs are clear. The cardiac silhouette is normal. There is no pleural effusion or pneumothorax. Compared to prior study, there is improved aeration of the lungs.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	A single AP view of the chest demonstrates normal cardiac silhouette. Lungs are clear. No consolidation. No effusion. No pneumothorax. No pulmonary vascular congestion. No acute cardiopulmonary disease.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 5 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDN5B1FSZIY44UV/GRDNBBFRXPKQ8OZL/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.15033993432730595258104012411292739149/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.31398950734830179192775660396381286592/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.45643441885977212149382679624019989361.png
Roger	findings	Low lung volumes are present, with seven posterior ribs projecting over aerated lung bilaterally. Compensating for the low lung volumes, cardiothymic silhouette is within normal limits. Airway thickening is noted, compatible with viral process or reactive airways disease. No airspace opacity characteristic of bacterial pneumonia is identified.	there is a left - sided pleural effusion with associated atelectasis. there is also a small right - sided pleural effusion. there is no evidence of a pneumothorax. the cardiomediastinal silhouette is unremarkable. there is a left - sided central venous catheter with the tip in the mid svc.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 4 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	No significant bone alterations are observed in the sternal region.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Cardiomediastinal contours are normal. Lungs are grossly clear. No pleural effusion or pneumothorax.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNIDTTTQIUBUV5/GRDN418JWV2B9L1K/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.43494773240527059999340610351109314448/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.22664066387450674512723532608842611099/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.17331157596254625123459894865775061414.png,ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNIDTTTQIUBUV5/GRDN418JWV2B9L1K/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.43494773240527059999340610351109314448/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.62465409455884062752582798432700696786/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.83146332056195584246469037878717247372.png
Roger	findings	The study is somewhat hampered due to patient motion artifact, suboptimal patient positioning and poor inspiratory effort, however, there is suggestion of bilateral perihilar, peribronchial thickening with associated minimal streaky ill-defined infrahilar/basilar airspace opacities. Heart: Normal. Mediastinum: Normal. Pleural effusions: None. Bones: There is no suspicious lytic or sclerotic lesions throughout the visualized bony structures. Visualized upper abdomen: Normal.	No pulmonary infiltrates or consolidations are observed. Radiological signs of COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) are present.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	The lungs are clear. The cardiac silhouette is not enlarged. No pleural effusions or pneumothorax are seen. The pulmonary vasculature is normal. The findings are unchanged compared to the previous examination from ___.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	PA AP chest demonstrates normal heart size. Lungs are clear.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNBTV91IZFWNHX/GRDNH986AO5ENJ8U/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.60312932238327570879636990558814114479/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.29393345359665587130985673954322483305/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.38090098701207126124125381125707811153.png
Roger	impression	Further improvement of previously identified multifocal pneumonic infiltrates. As there persist a few remnants further followup is recommended to ascertain stability.	In comparison with the study of ___, there is little change and no evidence of acute cardiopulmonary disease. No pneumonia, vascular congestion, or pleural effusion. Specifically, no hilar or mediastinal adenopathy or prominence of interstitial markings to radiographically suggest sarcoidosis. If there is serious clinical concern for this diagnosis, CT would be the next imaging procedure.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. no evidence of pneumonia. 2. mild bronchial wall thickening, which could reflect bronchitis.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	No acute cardiopulmonary process.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p16/p16662264/s54504950/d3b0d36d-5201ca16-3476454c-0e031e78-004217a2.jpg,mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p16/p16662264/s54504950/823fd649-1a827456-8a52f457-41419696-3c50b072.jpg
Roger	impression	1. Small ilateral pleural effusions with bibasilar atelectasis. No focal consolidations. 2. Fractured and misaligned median sternotomy wires are stable, indicating chronic sternal nonunion.	moderate right and small left pleural effusions, increased compared to the prior study. mild pulmonary vascular congestion.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	In comparison with the study of ___, there is little overall change. Again there is enlargement of the cardiac silhouette with pulmonary vascular congestion and bilateral pleural effusions with compressive atelectasis at the bases, more prominent on the right. Central catheter remains in place.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. Interval placement of a right-sided Port-A-Cath with the tip in the mid SVC. 2. Stable moderate right pleural effusion. 3. Stably enlarged cardiac silhouette.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 2 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p12/p12189285/s59956784/a4398b56-ec603dc8-a33c3c3b-d4969bf3-6ae3e7b1.jpg,mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p12/p12189285/s59956784/02e0109a-820d6579-26cf0f89-4e81bca1-65cc007f.jpg
Roger	impression	Moderate to severe congestive failure with bilateral moderate-sized pleural effusions, increased. As these findings could mask an underlying infectious process, if clinical concern persists repeat imaging after diuresis is recommended.	moderate pulmonary edema with moderate bilateral pleural effusions.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Moderate pulmonary edema with bilateral pleural effusions, moderate on the left and small on the right. Bibasilar airspace opacities may reflect compressive atelectasis but infection or aspiration cannot be excluded.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. Moderate pulmonary edema with bilateral pleural effusions, left greater than right. 2. Left lower lobe atelectasis. 3. Modified sternal wires, with wires 4 and 5 fractured.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 2 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p15/p15259244/s54756918/641cc7ad-8d3dc0c6-ee97f6e1-7bf62c19-d12ac7bd.jpg
Roger	impression	NO RELEVANT CHANGE AS COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS IMAGE. STERNOTOMY WIRES AND PACEMAKER IN UNCHANGED CORRECT POSITION. MILD ELONGATION OF THE DESCENDING AORTA. STATUS POST VALVULAR REPLACEMENT. MILD CARDIOMEGALY. NO PNEUMONIA, NO PULMONARY EDEMA.	no acute cardiopulmonary process.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 4 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	In comparison with the study of ___, the patient has taken a better inspiration. Continued enlargement of the cardiac silhouette without appreciable vascular congestion. This discordance raises the possibility of cardiomyopathy or even pericardial effusion. Dual-channel pacer device remains in place with leads in the right atrium and apex of the right ventricle. No evidence of acute focal pneumonia. Blunting of the left costophrenic angle is again seen.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	No acute cardiopulmonary process.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 4 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 2 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p16/p16043637/s59044123/c055e51a-f8fe191f-bc7f8dd3-78c1727e-d50f9a14.jpg
Roger	impression	1) Interval placement of the ET tube, tip in satisfactory position above the carina. Otherwise, overall similar. 2) Radiopacity over stomach - ? residual contrast. Clinical correlation requested. 3) LLL collpase consolidation. 4) Bilateral effusions. 5) Probable CHF.	In comparison with the study of ___, the monitoring and support devices are essentially unchanged. Continued enlargement of the cardiac silhouette with mild elevation of pulmonary venous pressure. Retrocardiac opacification with obscuration of the hemidiaphragm is consistent with substantial volume loss in the left lower lobe and probable small pleural effusion. Less prominent changes are seen at the right base.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. endotracheal tube has its tip approximately 3 cm above the carina. right subclavian central line has its tip in the distal svc. a nasogastric tube is seen coursing below the diaphragm with the tip not identified. there are layering bilateral effusions with patchy bibasilar airspace disease, left greater than right, which may reflect compressive atelectasis, although pneumonia cannot be entirely excluded. no evidence of pulmonary edema. no pneumothorax is seen. status post median sternotomy with stable postoperative cardiac and mediastinal contours.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 5 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 3 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. Endotracheal tube terminates 4.5 cm above the carina. 2. Persistent left lower lobe collapse. 3. Small bilateral pleural effusions.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p13/p13135946/s58519194/a012623c-3d2f7d18-ccd7f833-c984c099-56fbef61.jpg
Roger	impression	PA and lateral chest, ___: Previous right pleural thickening is improving, following tracheobronchoplasty via right thoracotomy. Posterior rib osteotomy, unchanged in relative position. Normal postoperative cardiomediastinal silhouette, including borderline cardiomegaly predating surgery. Lungs grossly clear. Lateral view shows prior cementoplasty, vertebral bodies thoracolumbar spine.	In comparison with the study of ___, the patient has taken a better inspiration. Cardiac silhouette is within normal limits and there is no evidence of vascular congestion or acute focal pneumonia. Blunting of the right costophrenic angle is again seen, consistent with pleural thickening and possible small effusion.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 5 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	no acute cardiopulmonary process.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 5 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. No evidence of pneumonia. 2. Stable right upper lobe scarring.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 2 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p11/p11474065/s57723670/965cab94-dee35b99-bf9616fc-1707a75d-e2368901.jpg,mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p11/p11474065/s57723670/44e39617-0b754c0a-b33e2351-0b5e42aa-f45409ab.jpg
Roger	impression	1. Low ET tube. This could be pulled back 2 cm for more optimal placement. 2. Nasogastric tube tip is not well seen due to technique but is at least to the level of GE junction. Recommend repeat CXR or abdominal films for further evaluation of the distal tip. 3. Unchanged persistent pulmonary edema. 4. Stable cardiomegaly.	ap chest compared to ___ : mild pulmonary edema has improved. moderate cardiomegaly and mediastinal vascular engorgement are stable. et tube and left subclavian line are in standard placements. nasogastric tube passes into the stomach and out of view. no pneumothorax or appreciable pleural effusion.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 2 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	AP chest compared to ___: Mild pulmonary edema has worsened. Moderate cardiomegaly and mediastinal vascular engorgement are stable. Pleural effusions are presumed, but not substantial. No pneumothorax. ET tube and left subclavian line are in standard placements and an upper enteric drainage tube passes into the stomach and out of view.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. ET tube tip 2.5 cm above the carina. 2	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 2 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p14/p14841168/s51131705/4f8a1691-89998d68-1647d35a-65f86204-16385ae8.jpg,mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p14/p14841168/s51131705/7ab14399-04914a4f-ecbeb632-86169815-b8874a50.jpg
Roger	impression	HEART SIZE IS ENLARGED, UNCHANGED. POST STERNOTOMY WIRES ARE STABLE. PACEMAKER DEFIBRILLATOR LEADS TERMINATE IN RIGHT ATRIUM AND RIGHT VENTRICLE, THE PACEMAKER IS LEFT-SIDED. MEDIASTINUM IS STABLE. BILATERAL INTERSTITIAL CHANGES AT THE NEED AND LOWER LUNGS APPEAR TO BE SLIGHTLY IMPROVED. NO PNEUMOTHORAX OR APPRECIABLE PLEURAL EFFUSION IS SEEN. PREVIOUSLY DEMONSTRATED MULTIFOCAL CONSOLIDATIONS HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVED AND THE CURRENTLY SEEN CHANGES MIGHT POTENTIALLY REPRESENT THE SEQUELA OR PREVIOUS ALVEOLAR CONSOLIDATIONS.	1. mild pulmonary edema. 2. stable moderate cardiomegaly.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	AP chest compared to ___ through ___: Moderate cardiomegaly and pulmonary vascular congestion have worsened since ___, but there is no edema or appreciable pleural effusion. Transvenous right atrial and right ventricular pacer leads follow their expected courses from the right axillary pacemaker. No pneumothorax or mediastinal widening. Dr. ___ ___ I discussed the findings and their clinical significance over the telephone at the time of dictation.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. Right-sided pacemaker with leads in the right atrium and right ventricle. No pneumothorax. 2. Mild pulmonary edema. 3. Small bilateral pleural effusions. 4. Bibasilar opacities may reflect atelectasis or consolidation. I have personally reviewed the images for this examination and agreed with the report transcribed above.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 2 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 4 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p12/p12475198/s57980670/c6f1c4e9-f329ac22-634957fc-4f7f9884-fa9f9fc8.jpg,mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p12/p12475198/s57980670/7872b2d7-eb63bb18-ed6cf009-39cf263d-a2965d5b.jpg
Roger	impression	AP chest compared to ___ through ___: Right hemidiaphragm has always been elevated relative to the left but the differential has been much greater since ___ than it was previously and greater today than on ___. This could be due to varying degrees of atelectasis at the right lung base or a phrenic nerve palsy captured at different stages in the respiratory cycle. There could also be a space-occupying process in the right upper abdominal quadrant such as exacerbation of hepatomegaly or a growing liver mass. Heart is normal size and mediastinum is not shifted at all to the right. I would recommend evaluation of peridiaphragmatic pathology, either fluid or mass. Left lung is clear and there is no left pleural effusion. Healed fractures of the posterolateral and anterolateral portions of left middle ribs, the latter more recent and not completely healed are new since the end of ___, but with enough bony callus to indicate they did not occur in the past several weeks. No pneumothorax. Findings were discussed with the house officer caring for this patient at the time of dictation.	AP chest reviewed in the absence of prior chest radiographs: Elevation of the right hemidiaphragm is chronic. There is no appreciable right pleural effusion. Left lung is clear. Cardiomediastinal and hilar silhouettes are normal. Left PIC line ends in the mid SVC. No pneumothorax.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ap chest compared to ___ : new opacification at the base of the right lung is most likely atelectasis, but pneumonia cannot be excluded. lungs are otherwise clear. heart size normal. no pleural effusion.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. No acute cardiopulmonary process. 2. Elevation of the right hemidiaphragm, of unknown chronicity.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p19/p19565653/s52631051/35ebe520-b4297eea-cf802191-670576d1-51ca727d.jpg
Roger	impression	No acute findings.	1. single frontal view of the chest demonstrates stable positioning of the support equipment. 2. interval increase in retrocardiac opacity which may represent atelectasis versus consolidation. 3. the cardiomediastinal silhouette is stable in configuration with mild cardiomegaly.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 3 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	AP chest reviewed in the absence of prior chest radiographs: Normal heart, lungs, hila, mediastinum and pleural surfaces. No pneumothorax or appreciable pleural effusion.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. SINGLE FRONTAL VIEW OF THE CHEST DEMONSTRATES A LARGE LEFT PNEUMOTHORAX WITH COLLAPSE OF THE LEFT LUNG. NO EVIDENCE OF MEDIASTINAL SHIFT. 2. THE RIGHT LUNGS ARE CLEAR. 3. THESE FINDINGS WERE DISCUSSED WITH THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT AT 11:30 A.M.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 4 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNIZRXSA5DDXKF/GRDNH8YO1V4DKN2V/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.61709493427034680667769918074106317961/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.44797988609539690916865466696605211554/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.52039128264938274454530980797250667143.png
Roger	impression	Normal chest radiograph.	1.SINGLE FRONTAL VIEW OF THE CHEST DEMONSTRATES A NORMAL CARDIOMEDIASTINAL SILHOUETTE. 2.LUNGS ARE CLEAR WITHOUT FOCAL CONSOLIDATION, EFFUSION, OR EDEMA. 3.VISUALIZED OSSEOUS STRUCTURES ARE UNREMARKABLE.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. single frontal view of the chest demonstrates stable positioning of the support equipment. 2. interval improved aeration of the right lung base with persistent small right pleural effusion. 3. the cardiomediastinal silhouette is stable in configuration with mild cardiomegaly.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. single frontal view of the chest demonstrates stable positioning of the support equipment. 2. interval increase in retrocardiac opacity which may represent atelectasis versus consolidation. 3. the cardiomediastinal silhouette is stable in configuration with mild cardiomegaly.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 3 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNH99AU4H3SECT/GRDNHO8F3ZB5E4U6/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.90773370142642219510670154570088667859/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.11740238667975282189559846475666349692/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.98191988059209844085545751864585649834.png,ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNH99AU4H3SECT/GRDNHO8F3ZB5E4U6/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.90773370142642219510670154570088667859/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.75634074822499520681179706919507512982/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.35996908460674665268024750223346119647.png
Roger	impression	Mild left base atelectasis.	1.SINGLE FRONTAL RADIOGRAPH OF THE CHEST DEMONSTRATES A NORMAL CARDIOMEDIASTINAL SILHOUETTE. 2.LUNGS ARE CLEAR WITHOUT FOCAL CONSOLIDATION. NO PNEUMOTHORAX, NO PLEURAL EFFUSIONS. 3.VISUALIZED OSSEOUS STRUCTURES AND SOFT TISSUES UNREMARKABLE.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	large right pleural effusion with associated atelectasis.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. no evidence of pneumonia. 2. mild pulmonary edema.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNQOBX1DI2JBND/GRDNIR9HRK96W6GP/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.55191401306810645645534969663812353643/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.66767143441875907205357454353699378196/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.27069795410732704377388526770942255413.png
Roger	impression	Negative low volume chest.	1.SINGLE FRONTAL VIEW OF THE CHEST DEMONSTRATES NO EVIDENCE OF FOCAL CONSOLIDATION, PLEURAL EFFUSION, PNEUMOTHORAX, OR PULMONARY EDEMA. 2.UNREMARKABLE CARDIOMEDIASTINAL SILHOUETTE. 3.VISUALIZED SOFT TISSUES AND OSSEOUS STRUCTURES ARE WITHIN NORMAL LIMITS.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	low lung volumes with bibasilar atelectasis.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. no evidence of pneumonia. 2. mild pulmonary edema.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNJ472Q3THYJN9/GRDNS1W70XJQYI5O/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.43074406029785789545148904906406865178/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.16255019795554057128911432045409527299/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.15675440529789279223269690687867864844.png
Roger	impression	Improvement in interstitial edema.	No previous images. The cardiac silhouette is within normal limits and there is no vascular congestion, pleural effusion, or acute focal pneumonia. Specifically, no evidence of hilar or mediastinal adenopathy or prominence of interstitial markings to radiographically suggest sarcoidosis.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1	1. No acute cardiopulmonary process. 2. No free intraperitoneal air.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1	1. no evidence of pneumonia. 2. mild pulmonary edema.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDN6P4O1SLUE73K/GRDNXGJB4W7VXWL7/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.41267160221589515020723420000976378989/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.14658685102374145563101301964248318820/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.28142220761748243903984365640749629668.png,ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDN6P4O1SLUE73K/GRDNXGJB4W7VXWL7/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.41267160221589515020723420000976378989/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.71406204271549926374082776251018582414/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.23857292074404173947870828553737025138.png
Roger	impression	Left lower lobe infiltrate identified.	1. SINGLE FRONTAL VIEW OF THE CHEST DEMONSTRATES CLEAR LUNGS WITHOUT FOCAL CONSOLIDATION, PLEURAL EFFUSIONS, OR PNEUMOTHORAX. 2. THE CARDIOMEDIASTINAL SILHOUETTE AND PULMONARY VASCULATURE ARE WITHIN NORMAL LIMITS. 3. VISUALIZED OSSEOUS STRUCTURES ARE INTACT.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Heart size is normal. There is a mild degree of peribronchial cuffing present. No focal infiltrates are identified.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. no evidence of pneumonia. 2. mild pulmonary edema.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNKBS30TC300QU/GRDNNI4X388B8SDB/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.10443416179020768152359416762679311908/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.44955721043533263938352905307252979699/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.98533256466223387216913373429242679297.png,ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNKBS30TC300QU/GRDNNI4X388B8SDB/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.10443416179020768152359416762679311908/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.50538948336787710761297702999939625390/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.44225399466184486806670318073704974886.png
Roger	impression	Bilateral infiltrates with slight interval worsening.	In comparison with the study of ___, there is little change in the appearance of the heart and lungs and no evidence of acute cardiopulmonary disease. No pneumonia, vascular congestion, or pleural effusion. The tip of the right subclavian PICC line again is in the region of the cavoatrial junction.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	no significant interval change.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. single frontal view of the chest demonstrates stable positioning of the support equipment. 2. interval increase in retrocardiac opacity which may represent atelectasis versus consolidation. 3. the cardiomediastinal silhouette is stable in configuration with mild cardiomegaly.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 2 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDN3XX22UN4PW1T/GRDNIXXGHUNATBA3/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.90344980058794074776566232208464820085/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.39521692298096973798941251390420623755/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.14083250465233657090870510756005990210.png
Roger	impression	Chronic changes stable from the prior exam.	AP chest compared to ___: Lungs are low in volume but clear. Heart size is normal. There is no appreciable pleural effusion or evidence of central lymph node enlargement. Right PIC line ends in the mid SVC. No pneumothorax.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Left perihilar infiltrate appears to be new since the prior study. Right hemithorax remains clear.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. single frontal view of the chest demonstrates stable positioning of the support equipment. 2. interval improved aeration of the right lung base with persistent small right pleural effusion. 3. the cardiomediastinal silhouette is stable in configuration with mild cardiomegaly.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 2 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNIGNZQ993ONU1/GRDN91R0LD1WXXF5/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.94315038450167338731892478237111582297/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.51332220888494509109198713379693110142/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.53846917579296091133959856625672819547.png
Roger	impression	1. Bibasilar atelectasis right greater than left. 2. Emphysema.	1. No acute cardiopulmonary process. 2. No evidence of free air beneath the diaphragms. 3. No displaced rib fracture identified. If there is continued clinical concern, a dedicated rib series with a skin marker at the site of the patient's pain is recommended.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1	1. mild pulmonary edema. 2. bibasilar opacities, likely atelectasis. 3. small right pleural effusion.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. no evidence of pneumonia. 2. mild pulmonary edema.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNRZEO195KL8ZT/GRDN9RIDWEY5Y7R9/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.60813168295341573535847308006527674629/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.51567156352873443598177857171898056060/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.11820850552024614068920216378039884034.png,ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNRZEO195KL8ZT/GRDN9RIDWEY5Y7R9/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.60813168295341573535847308006527674629/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.55680935922433089264603095897538291728/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.57517460566332958543905589463556244271.png
Roger	impression	Poor inspiration without findings of segmental consolidation. Please see above.	No previous images. The cardiac silhouette is within normal limits and there is no evidence of vascular congestion, pleural effusion, or acute focal pneumonia.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. moderate left pleural effusion with underlying atelectasis, underlying consolidation not excluded. 2. right basilar atelectasis.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. single frontal view of the chest demonstrates stable positioning of the support equipment. 2. interval increase in retrocardiac opacity which may represent atelectasis versus consolidation. 3. the cardiomediastinal silhouette is stable in configuration with mild cardiomegaly.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 4 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 3 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDN8SH9JA7WCC5A/GRDN9E03VTIE6MMF/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.25265493597255191881898413881593108824/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.78398772097805633990720048455876277743/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.61774297172132016751016768884277953192.png
Roger	impression	Cardiac enlargement and thoracic aortic aneurysm, unchanged. COPD. Small bilateral pleural effusions.	1.SINGLE FRONTAL VIEW OF THE CHEST DEMONSTRATES NO EVIDENCE OF FOCAL CONSOLIDATION, PLEURAL EFFUSION, PNEUMOTHORAX, OR PULMONARY EDEMA. 2.UNREMARKABLE CARDIOMEDIASTINAL SILHOUETTE. 3.VISUALIZED OSSEOUS STRUCTURES ARE WITHIN NORMAL LIMITS.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 4 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. new left upper lobe opacity, concerning for pneumonia. 2. stable bilateral pleural effusions.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. no evidence of pneumonia. 2. mild pulmonary edema.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 4 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 2 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNA6O5TY52ZDG3/GRDN7K8JRQSJO0ED/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.36970923682401240670711729977082500624/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.78118648594541447132398385468349106265/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.22356887001539108975246266183928934421.png,ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNA6O5TY52ZDG3/GRDN7K8JRQSJO0ED/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.36970923682401240670711729977082500624/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.82624262000987817013644826602185565633/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.18924457746753373093936583748304676776.png
Roger	impression	RIGHT PICC distal tip projects at cavoatrial junction though, assessment somewhat limited by body habitus.	AP chest reviewed in the absence of prior chest radiographs: Normal heart, lungs, hila, mediastinum and pleural surfaces. No pneumothorax or appreciable pleural effusion.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	there is a left - sided picc line with its tip at the cavoatrial junction. there is a small left pleural effusion. there is a persistent left retrocardiac opacity. there is no pneumothorax.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. no evidence of pneumonia. 2. mild pulmonary edema.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNBNE7C05MYEIQ/GRDN44IWYZ9HK9O6/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.28767496415323060544644787832288037160/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.71163188287983979217024148140761898171/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.60912446404180064593141156030844067016.png
Roger	impression	Airway thickening may reflect bronchitis or reactive airways disease. No airspace opacity is identified to suggest bacterial pneumonia pattern.	No acute cardiopulmonary process.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Heart size is normal. There is mild perihilar bronchial wall thickening. No focal consolidation or pleural effusion is identified. No acute osseous abnormality is identified.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. single frontal view of the chest demonstrates stable positioning of the support equipment. 2. interval improved aeration of the right lung base with persistent small right pleural effusion. 3. the cardiomediastinal silhouette is stable in configuration with mild cardiomegaly.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 3 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNS21OL072W28R/GRDNP2UOJW7EF41K/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.20696540450608626167310143112900858888/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.46648841300081204884731940890111687294/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.20138577764161982765474357916948731967.png
Roger	impression	Previously noted air bronchograms within medial lung bases are not well delineated on present examination. Overall, no well-defined focal consolidation.	In comparison with the study of ___, there is little change and no evidence of acute cardiopulmonary disease. No pneumonia, vascular congestion, or pleural effusion. Of incidental note is an azygos fissure, of no clinical significance.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Heart size is normal. Mediastinal and hilar contours are within normal limits. Lungs are clear. No pleural effusion or pneumothorax.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. no significant interval change. 2. stable mild pulmonary edema. 3. stable retrocardiac opacity.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 3 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDNZI9BQU7XWZFR/GRDNLUI97OWECEVC/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.32718320874460737934252125698556586620/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.98217137956597968316089938461491719634/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.38831380829195670952926181307995790821.png
Roger	impression	Endotracheal tube terminates 11 mm above the carina. Retrocardiac opacity, possibly reflecting a hiatal hernia, poorly evaluated. Consider dedicated PA/lateral chest radiographs when clinically able. Additional ancillary findings as noted above.	1. No acute cardiopulmonary process. 2. No evidence of free air beneath the diaphragms.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	low lung volumes with patchy bibasilar airspace opacities, possibly reflecting atelectasis though infection or aspiration cannot be excluded.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. no evidence of pneumonia. 2. mild pulmonary edema.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDN5B1FSZIY44UV/GRDNBBFRXPKQ8OZL/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.15033993432730595258104012411292739149/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.31398950734830179192775660396381286592/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.45643441885977212149382679624019989361.png
Roger	impression	1. The endotracheal tube appears satisfactorily positioned. 2. Additional tubing which resembles a nasogastric tube extends 5 cm to the left of midline distally. This could be in a large hiatal hernia. I am skeptical that it is in the tracheobronchial tree. Position of this tube could be ascertained with chest CT if clinically warranted. 3. There is some retrocardiac density which could be from pneumonia, atelectasis, or a hiatal hernia. 4. Low lung volumes are present, causing crowding of the pulmonary vasculature. 5. Poor definition of the AP window, possibly due to low lung volumes but nonspecific. Similarly, there is right paratracheal mediastinal prominence which could be from adenopathy but may be incidental. 6. Multiple chronic appearing displaced rib discontinuities in the upper right thorax laterally.	In comparison with the study of ___, there has been placement of a right subclavian PICC line that extends to the mid to lower portion of the SVC. No evidence of acute cardiopulmonary disease. Of incidental note is an azygos fissure, of no clinical significance.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 5 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	The lungs are clear. The heart is not enlarged. There is no pleural effusion or pneumothorax. Compared to the prior study, there is no significant change in the appearance of the lungs.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 5 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. single frontal view of the chest demonstrates stable positioning of the support equipment. 2. interval increase in retrocardiac opacity which may represent atelectasis versus consolidation. 3. the cardiomediastinal silhouette is stable in configuration with mild cardiomegaly.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 4 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 3 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	ReXGradient-160K-512/deid_png/GRDN60ARYJ6JCOXK/GRDNT6R7LP7ZW4W9/studies/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.84988202395084649892821973214521777715/series/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.83730254624873937233789011775132955502/instances/1.2.826.0.1.3680043.8.498.67540289350178319007524907711618500316.png
Roger	findings	Lateral view somewhat limited due to overlying motion artifact. The lungs are low in volume. There is no focal airspace consolidation to suggest pneumonia. A 1.2-cm calcified granuloma just below the medial aspect of the right hemidiaphragm is unchanged from prior study. No pleural effusions or pulmonary edema. There is no pneumothorax. The inferior sternotomy wire is fractured but unchanged. Surgical clips and vascular markers in the thorax are related to prior CABG surgery.	In comparison with the study of ___, there is little overall change. Again there are low lung volumes which accentuate the transverse diameter of the heart. However, no evidence of vascular congestion, pleural effusion, or acute focal pneumonia. Surgical clips are again seen in the region of the cardioesophageal junction. Of incidental note is an old healed fracture of the distal right clavicle.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	The patient is status post median sternotomy and coronary artery bypass surgery. Cardiomediastinal contours are within normal limits and without change. Lung volumes are low, but there are no focal areas of consolidation within the lungs. There are no pleural effusions or pneumothoraces. Surgical clips are present in the mediastinum and right upper quadrant of the abdomen.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	The patient is status post previous median sternotomy. Heart is upper limits of normal in size. Aorta is tortuous. Lungs are clear except for linear scar versus atelectasis at the left lung base. There are no pleural effusions or acute skeletal findings.	Significant: 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant: 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10046166/s50051329/abea5eb9-b7c32823-3a14c5ca-77868030-69c83139.jpg,mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10046166/s50051329/427446c1-881f5cce-85191ce1-91a58ba9-0a57d3f5.jpg
Roger	findings	Frontal and lateral radiographs of the chest redemonstrate a round calcified pulmonary nodule in the posterior right lung base, unchanged from multiple priors and consistent with prior granulomatous disease. A known enlarged right hilar lymph node seen on CT of ___ likely accounts for the increased opacity at the right hilum. A known right mediastinal lymph node conglomerate accounts for the fullness at the right paratracheal region. No pleural effusion, pneumothorax or focal consolidation is present. The patient is status post median sternotomy and CABG with wires intact. The cardiac silhouette is normal in size. The mediastinal and hilar contours are unchanged from the preceding radiograph.	The patient is status post previous median sternotomy and coronary artery bypass surgery. Heart size, mediastinal and hilar contours are normal. Lungs are clear except for linear areas of atelectasis or scarring in the left lower lobe. There are no pleural effusions or acute skeletal findings.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	the cardiomediastinal silhouette is normal. the lung parenchyma is clear. there are no pleural or significant bony abnormalities.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	The patient is status post previous median sternotomy and coronary artery bypass surgery. Heart size, mediastinal and hilar contours are normal. A calcified granuloma is present in the right middle lobe, and additional calcified lymph nodes are present in the right hilum, consistent with prior granulomatous disease. Lungs are otherwise clear, and there are no pleural effusions or acute skeletal findings.	Significant: 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant: 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10046166/s53492798/18f0fd6d-f513afc9-e4aa8de2-bc5ac0d6-ea3daaff.jpg,mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10046166/s53492798/7d5ef12b-34d86e32-207566d6-d5ed6f02-cd868f2c.jpg,mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10046166/s53492798/eab11c59-32a5b9b8-b8d335fa-ce06c5fa-5bde0499.jpg
Roger	findings	Frontal and lateral views of the chest were obtained. Rounded calcified nodule in the region of the posterior right lung base is seen and represents calcified granuloma on CTs dating back to ___, likely secondary to prior granulomatous disease. Previously seen pretracheal lymph node conglomerate and right hilar lymph nodes are better seen/evaluated on CT. No focal consolidation is seen. There is no pleural effusion or pneumothorax. Cardiac and mediastinal silhouettes are stable with possible slight decrease in right paratracheal prominence.	The patient is status post median sternotomy and CABG. Heart size is normal. Aorta is mildly tortuous and calcified. Mediastinal and hilar contours are otherwise unremarkable. Lungs are clear. No pleural effusion or pneumothorax. No acute osseous abnormality is identified.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	the patient is status post median sternotomy and cabg. the heart size is normal. the mediastinal and hilar contours are unremarkable. the pulmonary vascularity is normal. the lungs are clear. no pleural effusion or pneumothorax is present. there are mild degenerative changes in the thoracic spine.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Heart size, mediastinal and hilar contours are normal. Lungs are clear except for a calcified granuloma in the right lower lobe. There are no pleural effusions or acute skeletal findings.	Significant: 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant: 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10046166/s57379357/e5ba5704-ce2f09d3-e28fe2a2-8a9aca96-86f4966a.jpg,mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10046166/s57379357/6e511483-c7e1601c-76890b2f-b0c6b55d-e53bcbf6.jpg
Roger	findings	In comparison with the study of ___, there is no evidence of pneumothorax. Continued low lung volumes with substantial mass in the right paratracheal region.	the patient is status post median sternotomy and coronary artery bypass surgery. heart size is normal. the aorta is tortuous. the lungs are clear except for minimal patchy atelectasis at the left base. no pleural effusion or pneumothorax is visualized. there are no acute osseous abnormalities.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	The patient is status post median sternotomy and coronary artery bypass surgery. Cardiomediastinal contours are within normal limits for post-operative status of the patient. Lungs are clear except for linear atelectasis at the left base. No pleural effusion or pneumothorax.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	The patient is status post previous median sternotomy. Heart is upper limits of normal in size, and pulmonary vascularity is normal. Lungs are clear except for minor atelectasis at the lung bases. No pleural effusion or pneumothorax is evident.	Significant: 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant: 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10046166/s57977208/e2856783-ffa5ec26-043b0303-21aeddc6-b11b2876.jpg
Roger	findings	The ET tube is 3.5 cm above the carina. The NG tube tip is off the film, at least in the stomach. Right IJ Cordis tip is in the proximal SVC. The heart size is moderately enlarged. There is ill-defined vasculature and alveolar infiltrate, right greater than left. This is markedly increased compared to the film from two hours prior and likely represents fluid overload.	Endotracheal tube and nasogastric tube are in standard position. Cardiac silhouette is enlarged and accompanied by pulmonary vascular engorgement and widespread bilateral alveolar opacities, right greater than left. Observed findings may be due to severe pulomonary edema, but co-existing pneumonia in the right lung is also possible in the appropriate clinical setting. Followup radiographs after diuresis may be helpful in this regard. Bilateral pleural effusions are also demonstrated, but there is no visible pneumothorax.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	the endotracheal tube terminates 3. 8 cm above the carina. an enteric tube courses below the diaphragm and out of view on this image. there are diffuse bilateral airspace opacities, right greater than left, consistent with severe pulmonary edema. the heart is mildly enlarged. there is no pneumothorax.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Tip of endotracheal tube terminates 4.3 cm above the carina, and a nasogastric tube terminates within the stomach. Cardiac silhouette is enlarged, and accompanied by pulmonary vascular engorgement, perihilar haziness and asymmetrically distributed alveolar opacities, worse on the left than the right. Observed findings most likely represent asymmetrical pulmonary edema, but followup radiographs after diuresis would be helpful to ensure resolution and to exclude other co-existing process.	Significant: 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant: 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 2 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10268877/s50042142/4c3c1335-0fce9b11-027c582b-a0ed8d89-ca614d90.jpg
Roger	findings	Left PICC tip is seen terminating in the region of the distal left brachiocephalic vein. Tracheostomy tube is in unchanged standard position. The heart is moderately enlarged. Marked calcification of the aortic knob is again present. Mild pulmonary vascular congestion is similar. Bibasilar streaky airspace opacities are minimally improved. Previously noted left pleural effusion appears to have resolved. No pneumothorax is identified. Percutaneous gastrostomy tube is seen in the left upper quadrant.	In comparison with the study of ___, there is continued enlargement of the cardiac silhouette with pulmonary vascular congestion and bilateral pleural effusions with compressive atelectasis at the bases. In the appropriate clinical setting, supervening pneumonia would have to be considered. Tracheostomy tube remains in place and there is a left subclavian catheter that extends to the mid-to-lower portion of the SVC.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Tracheostomy tube is in standard position, and a left PICC terminates in the mid superior vena cava. Heart is upper limits of normal in size, and accompanied by pulmonary vascular congestion and mild interstitial edema. More confluent opacities in the right infrahilar region and left retrocardiac region may reflect dependent edema, aspiration, or infectious pneumonia. Followup radiographs after diuresis may be helpful in this regard. Small pleural effusions are present, but there is no visible pneumothorax. Dr. ___ has been successfully paged to discuss these findings at 8:30 a.m. on ___ at the time of discovery.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Tracheostomy tube is in standard position. Left PICC terminates in the region of the cavoatrial junction. Cardiac silhouette is enlarged, and accompanied by pulmonary vascular congestion and mild edema. Additional patchy opacities at the lung bases may reflect patchy atelectasis, aspiration, or additional site of infection. Small pleural effusions are also demonstrated.	Significant: 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant: 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10268877/s50239281/0c69d156-6f5f3a89-7d361367-57f8c979-583ef198.jpg
Roger	findings	Single AP portable view of the chest. No prior. The lungs are clear of large confluent consolidation. Cardiac silhouette enlarged but could be accentuated by positioning and relatively low inspiratory effort. Calcifications noted at the aortic arch. Degenerative changes noted at the glenohumeral joints bilaterally. Osseous and soft tissue structures otherwise unremarkable.	Cardiac silhouette is enlarged and accompanied by pulmonary vascular congestion and minimal interstitial edema. No confluent areas of consolidation are evident to suggest the presence of pneumonia, but standard PA and lateral chest radiographs may be helpful for more complete evaluation of the lung bases when the patient's condition allows.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	the heart is moderately enlarged. the aortic arch is calcified. the mediastinal and hilar contours appear unchanged. there is no pleural effusion or pneumothorax. the lungs appear clear.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Cardiac silhouette is markedly enlarged. This is accompanied by pulmonary vascular congestion and minimal interstitial edema. Additional patchy and linear opacities at the bases probably represent atelectasis, but coexisting aspiration or early pneumonia is possible in the appropriate clinical setting. Short-term followup radiographs may be helpful in this regard.	Significant: 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant: 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10268877/s51513702/053e0fdd-17dbee89-17885e49-08249a30-7f829c9c.jpg
Roger	findings	As compared to the previous radiograph, there is marked improvement in extent and severity of the pre-existing parenchymal opacities. Unchanged borderline size of the cardiac silhouette. No pleural effusions. The nasogastric tube has been removed. Endotracheal tube and the right internal jugular vein introduction sheath are in constant position.	as compared to the previous radiograph, the patient has been intubated. the tip of the endotracheal tube projects 2. 5 cm above the carina. the tube could be advanced by 1 - 2 cm. the patient also has a nasogastric tube. the course of the tube is unremarkable, the tip of the tube is not included on the image. the lung volumes have slightly decreased. there is moderate cardiomegaly with retrocardiac atelectasis but no evidence of pneumonia or pulmonary edema. no pneumothorax.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	As compared to the previous radiograph, the patient has been intubated. The tip of the endotracheal tube projects 4 cm above the carina. There is no evidence of complications, notably no pneumothorax. The patient has also received a nasogastric tube. The course of the tube is unremarkable, the tip projects over the middle parts of the stomach. The left PICC line is unchanged. Unchanged appearance of the cardiac silhouette and of the lung parenchyma.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Tip of endotracheal tube terminates 6.2 cm above the carina, and a nasogastric tube courses below the diaphragm, but tip is not visualized on this portable radiograph. Stable enlargement of cardiac silhouette accompanied by pulmonary vascular congestion and mild interstitial edema. Persistent left retrocardiac opacity is likely due to atelectasis.	Significant: 1. False prediction of finding: 4 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant: 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10268877/s51715880/1b966ed7-06a3bfa3-fee1b692-81c9a0b7-7678b5ec.jpg
Roger	findings	Indwelling support and monitoring devices are unchanged in position, and cardiomediastinal contours are stable allowing for positional differences. Left retrocardiac atelectasis has improved, but an area of confluent increased opacity in the right infrahilar region is new. The latter may reflect atelectasis, aspiration, or developing infection.	Tracheostomy tube and PICC are in standard position. Cardiomediastinal contours are within normal limits for technique. Mild pulmonary vascular congestion is accompanied by minimal interstitial edema. More confluent opacities are present at both lung bases, and could reflect dependent edema, aspiration, or infectious pneumonia. Followup radiographs after diuresis may be helpful in this regard. Small bilateral pleural effusions are present, but there is no visible pneumothorax.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 4 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 1 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	as compared to the previous radiograph, there is no relevant change. the monitoring and support devices are constant. low lung volumes with moderate cardiomegaly and retrocardiac atelectasis. no new parenchymal opacities. no pneumothorax.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Interval placement of endotracheal tube with tip terminating 4 cm above the carina. This could be withdrawn several centimeters for standard positioning. Exam is otherwise remarkable for worsening patchy and linear opacities at both lung bases, most likely due to atelectasis. Small left pleural effusion is also demonstrated.	Significant: 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 2 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 2 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant: 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10268877/s52199665/f1b12ac7-37699f77-a605ccbb-0eee65fd-e2f0351d.jpg
Roger	findings	A hazy opacity is present in the right lung which may represent aspiration, pleural effusion or hemorrhage. Retrocardiac opacity at the left base is unchanged. Moderate cardiomegaly is stable. Slight prominence of the pulmonary vasculature with cephalization and enlarged pulmonary arteries are consistent with mild pulmonary edema. Tracheostomy tube is in place. There are no displaced rib fractures.	as compared to the previous radiograph, there is no relevant change. the monitoring and support devices are constant. constant extensive bilateral parenchymal opacities, right more than left, with retrocardiac atelectasis. moderate cardiomegaly. no pneumothorax.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Tracheostomy tube is in standard position, and cardiomegaly is accompanied by pulmonary vascular congestion and worsening asymmetrical perihilar opacities, now involving the right lung to a greater degree than the left. Moderate left and small-to-moderate right pleural effusions are present, as well as a persistent left retrocardiac atelectasis and/or consolidation.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Tracheostomy tube is in standard position. Cardiac silhouette is enlarged accompanied by pulmonary vascular congestion and moderate pulmonary edema. Additional patchy opacities in the right mid and lower lung could reflect patchy atelectasis, aspiration, or developing pneumonia. Moderate right and small left pleural effusions are also demonstrated.	Significant: 1. False prediction of finding: 2 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 1 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant: 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10268877/s53452091/e35d7c70-3f278882-4f133ee9-184f4d7e-fa32a4d7.jpg
Roger	impression	1. Status post median sternotomy for CABG with stable cardiac enlargement and calcification of the aorta consistent with atherosclerosis. Relatively lower lung volumes with no focal airspace consolidation appreciated. Crowding of the pulmonary vasculature with possible minimal perihilar edema, but no overt pulmonary edema. No pleural effusions or pneumothoraces.	In comparison with the study of ___, there is little overall change. Again there is substantial enlargement of the cardiac silhouette in a patient with intact midline sternal wires. No evidence of vascular congestion or acute focal pneumonia. Blunting of the right costophrenic angle is again seen.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Cardiomediastinal contours are stable in appearance. Widespread bilateral pulmonary opacities persist. No new areas of consolidation are identified. There are no pleural effusions or pneumothoraces.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	no acute cardiopulmonary process.	Significant: 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 3 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant: 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10183775/s52835225/7f6d7289-9941e757-2663be13-0dde50f8-5d2670aa.jpg
Roger	impression	1. Left PICC tip appears to terminate in the distal left brachiocephalic vein. 2. Mild pulmonary vascular congestion. 3. Interval improvement in aeration of the lung bases with residual streaky opacity likely reflective of atelectasis. Interval resolution of the left pleural effusion.	AP chest compared to ___: Tracheostomy tube in standard placement. No pneumothorax, mediastinal widening or pleural effusion. Severe cardiomegaly is chronic. Pulmonary vascular congestion has worsened since ___, but there is no pulmonary edema. Pleural effusions are small, if any. Left PIC line ends at the origin of the SVC.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 3 2. Omission of finding: 1 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 2 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 1 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	Cardiac silhouette is enlarged. Mild pulmonary vascular congestion is present without overt edema. Lungs are clear. No pleural effusion or pneumothorax.	Significant 1. False prediction of finding: 1 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	1. left picc tip in the mid svc. 2. low lung volumes with bibasilar atelectasis.	Significant: 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 2 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 0 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 1 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0 Insignificant: 1. False prediction of finding: 0 2. Omission of finding: 0 3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 1 4. Incorrect severity of finding: 0 5. Mention of comparison that is not present in the reference: 0 6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0 7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0	mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10268877/s50239281/0c69d156-6f5f3a89-7d361367-57f8c979-583ef198.jpg

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.