In article <[log in to unmask]>, George Myszka
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>Having discussed this with a patient involved in screening the slides,
>some of this may be down to the nature of the job which involves having
>to look down a microscope at countless slides, one after another, all
>very similar, making qualitative decisions, until they start dancing
>before your eyes. The workload is heavy and enthusiasm is low.
>
>If someone could devise a digito/optical recognition system, at least
>every slide would be examined through the same criteria with ruthless
>precision and undimmed enthusiasm.
I remember at GP97 being shown a computerised screening programm which
was proven to out-perform the majority of screening labs.. quire
expensive, as it had a very low threshold for alerting the technician
for secondary human screening, but it would be interesting to see if it
would have prevented the latest debacle.. even if it was set up to do
spot checks on the screeners.
--
Chris Pearson
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|