[daedalus_f]

The FRCR 2b examination consists of three parts, a rapid reporting component (the candidate assess around 35 x-rays in 30 minutes where the candidate is simply expected to mark the film as normal or abnormal, this is a perceptual test and is largely limited to simple fracture vs normal) alongside a viva and long cases component where the candidate reviews more complex examinations and is expected to provide a report, differential diagnosis and management plan.

A quick look at the paper in the BMJ shows that the model did not sit the FRCR 2b examination as claimed, but was given a cut down mock up of the rapid reporting part of the examination invented by one of the authors.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/379/bmj-2022-072826.full.pdf

[nopinsight]

The paper you linked to was published in 2022. The results there were for a different system for sure.

Were the same tests also used here?

[jarrelscy]

One of the developers here. The paper links to an earlier model from a different group that could only interpret X-rays of specific body parts. Our model does not have such limitation.

However, the actual FRCR 2B Rapids exam question bank is not publicly available and the FRCR is unlikely to agree to release them as this would compromise the integrity of their examination in the future- so the test used are mock examinations, none of which have been provided to the model during training.

[daedalus_f]

Interesting, is your model still based on radiographs alone, or can it look at cross-sectional imaging as well?

[jarrelscy]

This current model is radiographs alone. The FRCR 2B Rapids exam is based on only radiographs.

[zeagle]

So you should disclose this in your advertising spiel?

[jarrelscy]

Agreed, updated at https://harrison.ai/harrison-rad-1/

[zeagle]

Great. Kudos to you for being open to the feedback!

[jarrelscy]

No problem! Thanks for picking it up.