Comparison of voice-automated transcription and human transcription in generating pathology reports

Software that can convert spoken words into written text has been available since the early 1980s. Early continuous speech systems were developed in 1994, with the latest commercially available editions having a claimed accuracy of up to 98% of speech recognition at natural speech rates. To evaluate...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (1976) 2003-06, Vol.127 (6), p.721-725
Hauptverfasser: Al-Aynati, Maamoun M, Chorneyko, Katherine A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Software that can convert spoken words into written text has been available since the early 1980s. Early continuous speech systems were developed in 1994, with the latest commercially available editions having a claimed accuracy of up to 98% of speech recognition at natural speech rates. To evaluate the efficacy of one commercially available voice-recognition software system with pathology vocabulary in generating pathology reports and to compare this with human transcription. To draw cost analysis conclusions regarding human versus computer-based transcription. Two hundred six routine pathology reports from the surgical pathology material handled at St Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, Ontario, were generated simultaneously using computer-based transcription and human transcription. The following hardware and software were used: a desktop 450-MHz Intel Pentium III processor with 192 MB of RAM, a speech-quality sound card (Sound Blaster), noise-canceling headset microphone, and IBM ViaVoice Pro version 8 with pathology vocabulary support (Voice Automated, Huntington Beach, Calif). The cost of the hardware and software used was approximately Can 2250 dollars. A total of 23 458 words were transcribed using both methods with a mean of 114 words per report. The mean accuracy rate was 93.6% (range, 87.4%-96%) using the computer software, compared to a mean accuracy of 99.6% (range, 99.4%-99.8%) for human transcription (P
ISSN:0003-9985
1543-2165
DOI:10.5858/2003-127-721-COVTAH