Hirsbrunner H P, Fankhauser F, Jenni A, Funkhouser A
Universitäts-Augenklinik, Bern, Switzerland.
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1990;228(3):237-41. doi: 10.1007/BF00920027.
When evaluating expert systems to be used in clinical perimetry, various aspects of their performance as compared with that of human interpreters must be considered. In this investigation, the results produced by the new Octosmart diagnostic program have been compared with the performance of three interpreters with various amounts of experience in visual field analysis. The evaluations were based on 27 visual fields with glaucomatous damage, which had been examined with the Octopus program G1. It is shown that in borderline cases (i.e., neither clearly normal nor clearly pathological) where strict statistical criteria must be employed in order to distinguish between possible pathology and artifacts, the "personal styles" of human interpreters, more than standardized decision criteria, implicitly guide the decision process, resulting in unpredictable, non-standardized interindividual differences. A standardized expert system, based on constant, explicit, and logical criteria is therefore considered to be superior to unaided human interpretation. It is pointed out that the influence of the implicit decision criteria of human interpreters must be controlled carefully if expert systems are to be evaluated with reference to human interpreters.
在评估用于临床视野检查的专家系统时，必须考虑其与人类解读员相比在性能方面的各个方面。在本研究中，将新的Octosmart诊断程序产生的结果与三位在视野分析方面经验各异的解读员的表现进行了比较。评估基于27个患有青光眼损害的视野，这些视野是使用Octopus程序G1进行检查的。结果表明，在临界病例（即既非明显正常也非明显病理状态）中，为了区分可能的病理情况和伪迹必须采用严格的统计标准，此时人类解读员的“个人风格”而非标准化的决策标准会隐性地指导决策过程，导致不可预测的、非标准化的个体间差异。因此，基于恒定、明确和逻辑标准的标准化专家系统被认为优于无辅助的人类解读。需要指出的是，如果要参照人类解读员来评估专家系统，必须仔细控制人类解读员隐性决策标准的影响。
