annotator
string | type
string | ground_truth
string | prediction2
string | annotation2
string | prediction3
string | annotation3
string | prediction1
string | annotation1
string | images_path
string |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Roger
|
impression
|
1. Decreased left basilar consolidation with mild pulmonary edema. 2. Possible pulmonary arterial hypertension.
|
1. Endotracheal tube in standard position. 2. Left internal jugular central venous catheter tip in the mid SVC. No pneumothorax. 3. Patchy bibasilar airspace opacities may reflect atelectasis but infection or aspiration cannot be excluded in the correct clinical setting. 4. Small bilateral pleural effusions. 5. Mild pulmonary vascular congestion.
|
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
|
1. no evidence of focal consolidation. 2. small bilateral pleural effusions.
|
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
|
1. endotracheal tube has its tip approximately 4 cm above the carina. left internal jugular central line has its tip in the proximal svc. interval placement of a nasogastric tube which courses below the diaphragm with the tip not identified. 2. interval improvement in lung volumes with residual patchy opacity at the right base likely reflecting atelectasis. no evidence of pulmonary edema. no pneumothorax. overall, cardiac and mediastinal contours are stable.
|
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: 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/s53021891/046bbbe6-823f11ab-c43a868b-b3342241-8cf3254b.jpg
|
Roger
|
impression
|
AP chest compared to ___: ET tube in standard placement. Nasogastric tube passes into the stomach and out of view. No pneumothorax. Leftward mediastinal shift suggests a new opacification at the base of the left lung is atelectasis. The right lung is clear. Left jugular line ends at the origin of the SVC.
|
In comparison with the study of ___, the monitoring and support devices are essentially unchanged. Continued enlargement of the cardiac silhouette without appreciable vascular congestion. This discordance raises the possibility of cardiomyopathy or even pericardial effusion. Retrocardiac opacification is consistent with volume loss in the left lower lobe. No evidence of acute focal pneumonia.
|
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: 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. interval placement of a right - sided chest tube with decrease in the right pleural effusion. 2. persistent large right pleural effusion with right lung atelectasis. 3. mild pulmonary edema.
|
Significant
1. False prediction of finding: 5
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
|
ap chest compared to ___ : left lower lobe remains densely consolidated, and there is at least a small left pleural effusion. moderate cardiomegaly and pulmonary vascular congestion are stable. et tube is in standard placement. left internal jugular line ends in the mid svc and a nasogastric tube passes into the stomach and out of view. no 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: 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/p10268877/s53368667/aebc8b32-83f9db36-e7859808-602b3b39-66bb2765.jpg
|
Roger
|
impression
|
1. Hazy opacity in the right lung which may represent aspiration versus pleural effusion or hemorrhage. 2. Mild pulmonary edema. 3. No displaced rib fractures.
|
In comparison with the study of ___, the monitoring and support devices are unchanged. 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, it would be difficult to unequivocally exclude superimposed pneumonia, especially in the absence of a lateral view.
|
Significant
1. False prediction of finding: 5
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
|
Both lungs are clear. There is no focal consolidation, pleural effusion or pneumothorax. Heart size is normal. Mediastinal contours are normal. No pleural or parenchymal opacities are present.
|
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
|
1. new right perihilar opacity concerning for pneumonia. 2. mild pulmonary edema. 3. stable moderate cardiomegaly.
|
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
|
mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10268877/s53452091/e35d7c70-3f278882-4f133ee9-184f4d7e-fa32a4d7.jpg
|
Roger
|
impression
|
1. Mild chronic congestive heart failure with stable trace pulmonary edema at the right lung base. 2. Stable bibasilar atelectasis.
|
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 poor definition of the left hemidiaphragm is consistent with volume loss in the left lower lobe and probable small pleural effusion.
|
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: 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. small bilateral pleural effusions.
|
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
|
ap chest compared to ___ : previous mild pulmonary edema has improved, but there is still substantial consolidation in the left lower lobe, which could be pneumonia. moderate cardiomegaly is stable. pleural effusions are presumed, but not large. et tube and left internal jugular line are in standard placements and a nasogastric tube passes into the stomach and out of view. no pneumothorax.
|
Significant:
1. False prediction of finding: 6
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
|
mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10268877/s54103072/46258faf-c930aa13-1b09c523-4972126b-47bba114.jpg
|
Roger
|
impression
|
No significant interval change since prior. Pulmonary vascular congestion. Bibasilar opacities potentially due to atelectasis; however, infection is not excluded.
|
1. Tracheostomy tube remains in satisfactory position. Left subclavian PICC line has its tip in the distal SVC near the cavoatrial junction. Overall, cardiac and mediastinal contours are stable. There are layering bilateral effusions with bibasilar airspace opacities likely reflecting partial lower lobe atelectasis, although pneumonia cannot be excluded. There has been interval appearance of mild perihilar and interstitial edema. No pneumothorax is appreciated.
|
Significant
1. False prediction of finding: 4
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): 0
|
1. mild pulmonary edema with small bilateral pleural effusions. 2. bibasilar opacities may represent atelectasis, however pneumonia 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: 0
5. Mention of comparison that is 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 right lower lobe opacity concerning for pneumonia. 2. mild pulmonary edema. 3. stable small bilateral pleural effusions.
|
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: 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/p10/p10268877/s54137212/e279d10a-22b3d14a-0527c87a-bbd31c9b-de232422.jpg
|
Roger
|
impression
|
1. Unchanged bibasilar opacities are consistent with atelectasis or consolidation and pneumonia should be considered in the appropriate clinical context. 2. Improved pulmonary edema.
|
In comparison with the study of ___, the monitoring and support devices are unchanged. 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, it would be difficult to exclude superimposed pneumonia, especially in the absence of a lateral view.
|
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: 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: 1
6. Omission of a change from a previous study: 0
7. Inarticulate report (grammar and readability issues): 0
|
The lungs are clear without infiltrate or consolidation. There is no pneumothorax or pleural effusion. Compared to the prior study there is improved aeration of the lungs.
|
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
|
1. moderate pulmonary edema. 2. small bilateral pleural effusions. 3. retrocardiac opacity may represent atelectasis, however, pneumonia cannot be excluded.
|
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
|
mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10268877/s57765703/2f8ca5e2-5a1e02ab-e84f7547-069743e9-0f08d9e0.jpg
|
Roger
|
impression
|
Mild residual retrocardiac opacification remains, pneumonia vs. atelectasis.
|
As compared to the previous radiograph, the patient has been intubated. The tip of the endotracheal tube projects approximately 4 cm above the carinal. The patient has also received the nasogastric tube. The course of the tube is unremarkable, the tip is not visualized on the image. The right PICC line is in unchanged position. The lung volumes have decreased. There is mild fluid overload but no overt pulmonary edema. Moderate retrocardiac atelectasis. No larger pleural effusions. No pneumothorax.
|
Significant
1. False prediction of finding: 4
2. Omission of finding: 0
3. Incorrect location/position of finding: 3
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
|
1. worsening bilateral upper lobe opacities, concerning for worsening pneumonia. 2. stable bilateral pleural effusions.
|
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: 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 2 cm above the carina. a right subclavian picc line has its tip in the right atrium. a nasogastric tube is seen coursing below the diaphragm with the tip not identified. lung volumes remain low with patchy opacities at both bases most likely reflecting atelectasis, although pneumonia cannot be entirely excluded. no evidence of pulmonary edema. no pneumothorax. overall, cardiac and mediastinal contours are likely stable given differences in positioning.
|
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: 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
|
mimic-cxr-images-512/files/p10/p10268877/s57976739/d6010cbd-efa41b72-2fbc0daf-8fa1dc40-bdd4fe35.jpg
|
Roger
|
impression
|
Limited study with hazy opacity in the right upper and mid lungs which may be infectious in etiology, atelectasis or artifact.
|
1. Endotracheal tube in standard position. 2. Low lung volumes with mild pulmonary vascular congestion and bibasilar atelectasis. 3. Enteric tube courses below the level of the diaphragm, inferior aspect not included on the image.
|
Significant
1. False prediction of finding: 5
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
|
the heart size is within normal limits. the mediastinal and hilar contours are normal. the lungs demonstrate a small left pleural effusion and adjacent atelectasis. 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: 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. tracheostomy tube remains in place. there is a left subclavian picc line with its tip in the proximal svc. lung volumes remain low with patchy opacity at both bases, left greater than right, which may reflect atelectasis, although pneumonia cannot be entirely excluded. no evidence of pulmonary edema. no pneumothorax. overall, cardiac and mediastinal contours are likely stable given differences in positioning and inspiration.
|
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: 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/p10/p10268877/s59301985/f2ea048e-52ada468-199a5a64-06f14cb3-76e57312.jpg
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.