Patent Publication Number: US-2020294655-A1

Title: System and method to automatically prepare an attention list for improving radiology workflow

Description:
FIELD 
     The following relates generally to the radiology arts, radiology reading arts, radiology workstation arts, radiology workstation user interfacing arts, and related arts. 
     BACKGROUND 
     In existing radiology reporting, a radiology examination is ordered and performed, and subsequently the images are read by a radiologist who reports findings of the radiology examination followed by his/her impressions towards diagnosis in the form of a written radiology report. The referral order for the radiology examination states a reason for examination, textually and/or in the form of an order code such as an ICD code suitable for billing purposes, and the radiologist is tasked with addressing the reason for examination. The radiologist is a medical specialist in the field of radiology, and according to personal expertise may also incidentally identify other medical conditions or concerns to the extent the radiologist recognizes them in the radiology images. However, in practice the radiologist&#39;s opportunity to investigate medical conditions going beyond the scope of the reason for examination is curtailed by time constraints. 
     In a typical work environment, the images and metadata of radiology examinations are stored in a Picture Archiving and Communications System (PACS) and/or a Radiology Information System (RIS) or the like, and the radiologist is seated at a radiology workstation providing a graphical user interface (GUI) environment tailored for supporting the radiology examination reading process, e.g. providing windows for viewing images, a report entry window, and optionally other windows for displaying patient information or the like. In many clinical settings, a radiologist is expected to maintain high throughput. For example, a typical Radiology Department may expect the radiologist to perform a complete x-ray or ultrasound reading, including reviewing every image, making medical determinations, and dictating and filing the radiology report, in a time frame of about two minutes or even less. A more complex reading, such as a multi-slice computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reading, may be expected to be performed in about 5-7 minutes. These are merely illustrative expected reading times and longer or shorter expected reading times may be instituted for a given Radiology Department. A given radiology reading task also may take longer (or shorter) than these expected times—but on average, the radiologist is expected to meet benchmark time frames such as the above typical values to be operating at an acceptable level of efficiency. 
     The following discloses certain improvements. 
     BRIEF SUMMARY 
     In accordance with one illustrative example, a radiology workstation is operative to support interpreting a stored radiology examination of a patient. The stored radiology examination is stored in a radiology database and comprises one or more radiology images and stored data including at least an imaging modality and a reason for examination. The radiology workstation comprises a display, a user input device, and an electronic processor programmed to perform a reading method. The reading method includes: displaying a radiology image of the radiology examination on the display; receiving a radiology report entered via the user input device; determining an imaged anatomical region from the stored radiology examination; identifying an examination basis medical condition from the reason for examination; determining at least one additional medical condition based on information on the patient retrieved from one or more medical databases; classifying each additional medical condition as reviewable or not reviewable based on the imaging modality and the imaged anatomical region; populating an attention list with items directed to the examination basis medical condition and to each reviewable additional medical condition; and displaying a representation of the attention list on the display. 
     In accordance with another illustrative example, a method of supporting interpretation of a stored radiology examination of a patient is disclosed. The stored radiology examination comprises one or more radiology images and stored data including at least an imaging modality and a reason for examination. The method comprises: displaying a radiology image of the radiology examination on a display; receiving a radiology report entered via a user input device; determining at least one medical condition based on information on the patient retrieved from one or more medical databases; classifying each medical condition as reviewable or not reviewable based on the imaging modality and an imaged anatomical region of the radiology examination; creating an attention list including at least one item directed to each reviewable medical condition; and displaying a representation of the attention list on the display. 
     In accordance with another illustrative example, a non-transitory storage medium stores instructions readable and executable by at least one electronic processor to perform a method of supporting interpretation of a stored radiology examination of a patient. The stored radiology examination comprises one or more radiology images and stored data including at least an imaging modality and a reason for examination. The method comprises: displaying a radiology image of the radiology examination on a radiology workstation; receiving a radiology report entered via the radiology workstation; determining at least one medical condition based on information on the patient retrieved from one or more medical databases; classifying each medical condition as reviewable or not reviewable based on the imaging modality and an imaged anatomical region of the radiology examination; creating an attention list including at least one item directed to each reviewable medical condition; and displaying a representation of the attention list on the radiology workstation. 
     One advantage resides in providing a radiology workstation configured to inform the radiologist of attention items including existing medical conditions of the patient that should be reviewed but that are not part of the stated reason for examination. 
     Another advantage resides in providing a radiology workstation configured to inform the radiologist of attention items including medical conditions for which the patient is particularly at risk (eg., due to age, sex, race, genetic background, family history, etc.) and could be advantageously screened, but that are not part of the stated reason for examination. 
     Another advantage resides in providing a radiology workstation configured to inform the radiologist of attention items including particular items to review relating to the stated reason for examination. 
     Another advantage resides in providing a radiology workstation configured to inform the radiologist of one or more of the foregoing attention items and to further provide links to evidence supporting inclusion of each attention item in the attention list. 
     Another advantage resides in providing a radiology workstation configured to inform the radiologist of one or more of the foregoing attention items in an unobtrusive manner. 
     Another advantage resides in providing a radiology workstation configured to inform the radiologist of one or more of the foregoing attention items and to enforce their consideration by holding up issuance of the radiology report until all items are addressed in the report. 
     Another advantage resides in providing a radiology workstation configured to inform the radiologist of one or more of the foregoing attention items and to enforce their consideration by holding up issuance of the radiology report until all items are addressed in the report or are removed from the attention list by affirmative action performed by the radiologist. 
     Further advantages of the present invention will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art upon reading and understanding the following detailed description. It will be appreciated that a given embodiment may provide none, one, two, or more of these advantages. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
       The invention may take form in various components and arrangements of components, and in various steps and arrangements of steps. The drawings are only for purposes of illustrating the preferred embodiments and are not to be construed as limiting the invention. 
         FIG. 1  diagrammatically illustrates a radiology workstation configured to inform the radiologist of attention items. 
         FIG. 2  diagrammatically illustrates operation of the items identifier processes to identify additional medical condition(s). 
         FIG. 3  diagrammatically illustrates operation of the items identifier processes to determine attention items from the reason for examination and the additional medical conditions. 
         FIG. 4  diagrammatically illustrates a graphical user interface (GUI) dialog suitably shown by the radiology workstation of  FIG. 1 , further diagrammatically showing operation of links to evidence supporting inclusion of each attention item in the attention list. 
         FIG. 5  diagrammatically illustrates operation of the attention list item checkoff process suitably implemented by the radiology workstation of  FIG. 1 . 
     
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION 
     Improvements disclosed herein are premised in part on the recognition herein that radiology images acquired for a stated reason for examination may nonetheless be useful for other tasks, such as reviewing existing problems (“existing” problems as used herein broadly include past problems that are currently in remission, believed to be cured, not currently manifesting symptoms or so forth, but which have a heightened likelihood of recurrence, e.g. certain types of cancer) of the patient which are not requested in the examination order, and/or screening for other medical conditions for which the patient may be at particularly high risk. However, the radiologist may not be aware of existing problems of the patient which are not identified in the examination order. Likewise, the radiologist may fail to proactively screen for at-risk medical conditions that can be screened using the imaging examination (that is, are detectable using the imaging modality, contrast, et cetera), either due to ignorance of the patient&#39;s heightened risk for the medical condition or due to time constraints. Furthermore, even if the radiologist investigates an existing condition or screens for an at-risk medical condition, unless an affirmative finding is identified the radiologist may fail to mention this in the radiology report. In this case, the referring physician cannot assume that the radiology examination addressed the existing medical condition, or screened for the at-risk medical condition. As a consequence, the patient may undergo additional, repetitive radiology examinations, leading to inefficiency and, in the case of certain imaging modalities, increased ionizing radiation dose. Furthermore, if the radiologist fails to make an affirmative finding of a medical condition of the patient, the patient may suffer due to delayed diagnosis and treatment. 
     In some improvements disclosed herein, an attention list graphical user interface (GUI) dialog (i.e. dashboard) is displayed on a display of the radiology workstation. This attention list GUI dialog identifies items the radiologist should address. An attention item as used herein may be any clinical condition, potential diagnosis, or other medical item that is recommended to be addressed by the radiologist in the radiology report. The attention items may, for example, include: “new” items pertaining to the stated reason for examination; “existing” items pertaining to existing medical condition(s) of the patient (for example, drawn from an Electronic Health Record or the like; an existing medical condition as used herein may broadly encompass a condition currently in remission and/or not currently symptomatic), and/or screening items calling for the radiologist to screen for at-risk medical condition(s) for which the patient is at heightened risk (as determined from demographic data, potential for co-occurrence of a new medical condition based on an existing medical condition, or so forth). The illustrative attention list GUI dialog optionally presents the attention items with links to evidence which would merit attention to (and addressing) each listed item. Optionally, issuance of the radiology report may be conditioned on every item of the attention list being addressed in the report (even if by a statement such as “&lt;organ&gt;is normal”). This approach ensures all attention items are addressed, and are presented in the report so that the referring physician can rely on the radiology examination for each of these items. In a variant approach, the radiologist may bypass one or more items by affirmatively removing them from the attention list, thereby providing more control for the radiologist while still ensuring the radiologist at least considers each item. 
     As used herein, a “patient” refers to a radiology examination subject (or “examination subject” for brevity). The term “patient” as used herein broadly encompasses hospital in-patients, hospital out-patients, emergency room patients, independent imaging center clients, persons who visit a medical office of any kind and are directed to a radiology laboratory for a radiology examination, or so forth. Terms such as “radiology”, “radiology examination”, and the like refer to medical imaging examination that acquires medical images of the subject. The radiology modality may, by way of non-limiting illustrative example, be magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), transmission computed tomography (CT) imaging, positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging, fluoroscopy imaging, digital radiography (DR) imaging, ultrasound imaging, or so forth. A “radiology report” is a text-based report (optionally including some embedded images or other non-textual elements) describing the findings of a radiologist (which as used herein broadly encompasses any medical professional drafting a report providing expert findings determined from the images) who has reviewed (i.e. “read”) the images of the radiology examination. A “medical condition” is used herein in its usual and ordinary sense as a broad term that encompasses diseases, lesions, disorders, or the like that are normally susceptible to receiving medical treatment. 
     With reference to  FIG. 1 , a radiology database  10  such as a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) and/or Radiology Information System (RIS) is implemented on a networked computing system  12  diagrammatically indicated in  FIG. 1  by a server computer. It will be appreciated that the networked computing system  12  may comprise a single server computer, a computing cluster, a cloud computing resource, or so forth. The radiology database  10  is referred to herein as an RIS/PACS database  10  as these are commonly employed names for the radiology database; however, other phraseology may be employed. The networked computing system  12  is connected with one or (more typically) a plurality of radiology workstations, where  FIG. 1  illustrates a single representative radiology workstation  14 , via a secure electronic data network, such as a wired and/or wireless Wide Area Network (WAN) implemented via Ethernet, WiFi, the Internet, various combinations thereof, or another suitable wired and/or wireless electronic data networking protocol. The secure electronic data network should have sufficient bandwidth to communicate radiology images, which are typically large data files, to and from the radiology workstation  14 . Optionally, the RIS/PACS  10  may be accessible from other computing systems such as physician&#39;s desktop computers, radiological imaging system controllers (e.g. MRI or CT system controllers) or so forth (not shown). 
     Each radiology workstation  14  includes a workstation electronic processor, for example embodied as a computer  16 . The workstation electronic processor may be a multi-core processor, a cloud computing resource, various combinations thereof, or so forth. It is also contemplated to consider the server computer  12  or other operatively connected electronic processor as an electronic processor of the radiology workstation  14 . Each radiology workstation  14  further includes at least one display device, e.g. an illustrative display device  20  of the computer  16  and an additional display device  22 . It is contemplated that the radiology workstation  14  may employ a web browser-based user interface. Providing the radiology workstation  14  with two (or more) display devices can be advantageous as it allows one display device to be used to display textual content or other auxiliary information while the other display device is used as a dedicated radiology image viewer; however a radiology workstation with only a single display device is also contemplated. At least one display device of the radiology workstation  14  should be a high-resolution display capable of displaying radiology images with sufficiently high resolution to enable the radiologist to accurately interpret the radiology image. Each radiology workstation  14  further includes at least one user input device, such as: an illustrative computer keyboard  24 ; a mouse, touchpad  26 , or other pointing device; a touch-sensitive display (e.g., one or both display devices  20 ,  22  may be a touch-screen display); a dictation microphone  28 , or so forth. In the illustrative example, the display  20  presents one or more (illustrative four) images  30 , while the display  22  presents a report window  32  which displays (a portion of) a radiology report being drafted by a radiologist using dictation via the dictation microphone  28 . As is known in the art, the workstation preferably allows the radiologist to manipulate the displayed images using operations such as pan, zoom, various filtering operations (e.g. edge detect, contrast adjustments, et cetera), or so forth, and may also provide GUI tools for using one or more cursors to measure dimensions of image features (e.g. a tumor), and so forth. It may be noted that the term “radiology workstation” is used herein as it is commonly used in the relevant arts, but more generally the radiology workstation  14  as used herein encompasses any computer or electronic device with at least one display, at least one user input device, and an electronic processor programmed to provide for displaying images and for receiving input of a radiology report. 
     The radiology workstation  14  is employed by a radiologist in performing a reading of a radiology examination. Typically, the workstation  14  displays a list of imaging studies and the radiologist selects a study for review (i.e. reading) based on preference or based on assignment. The selected imaging study is opened, and the radiologist browses through images, may open some prior imaging studies (including images and/or reports) accessible through PACS and RIS  10 , may also access patient data from the general-purpose medical database  44  or other patient database  46  such as sex, age, lab results, drug usage, blood test, or so forth. The radiologist may select an appropriate report template and then start dictating (through transcribing) clinical observations and impressions. The radiologist may also include in the report text regarding the relevant history of the patient, data available from prior reports and images that are relevant to current problem. The clinical observations and impressions may include diagnosis and follow up steps and recommendations and/or so forth. The radiologist may also mark some locations in the image data, which may be stored for example as metadata in the report, and make a reference to such markings in the report. 
     With continuing reference to  FIG. 1 , the electronic processor  12  is further programmed to implement an attention list user interface  36  configured to generate an attention list  40  that is displayed as an attention list dialog  42  on a display  22  of the radiology workstation  14 . The attention list  40  is created with items directed to each of one or more reviewable medical conditions that are determined by the attention list user interface  36  based on information on the patient retrieved from one or more medical databases, such as an illustrative Electronic Health Record (EHR), Electronic Medical Record (EMR), or other general-purpose medical database  44  and/or an illustrative cardiovascular information system (CVIS)  46  and/or the aforementioned radiology database  10  and/or other domain-specific medical database, and/or so forth. The attention list may optionally also include one or more items directed to an examination basis medical condition (or conditions), that is, to the medical condition or conditions that prompted the referring physician to order the radiology examination. 
     As diagrammatically shown in  FIG. 1 , the attention list user interface  36  collects information for creating the attention list with items directed to medical conditions that are, or reasonably may be expected to be, relevant to the patient. To this end, the radiology examination  48  stored in the RIS/PACS  10  is mined for relevant information. The stored radiology examination  48  comprises one or more radiology images and stored data including at least the imaging modality  50  of the examination (e.g., MRI, CT, PET, SPECT, DR, fluoroscopy, ultrasound, or so forth) and a reason for examination  52 . The image modality b may be stored in various ways, such as metadata making up a header or other informational file or section of the stored radiology examination, or modality metadata tags associated with the individual images, or so forth. The reason for examination  52  may be stored as part of the header or other informational file or section of the stored radiology examination  48 , or as an entry of the referral order form, and/or so forth. The reason for examination  52  may be variously expressed, for example as a freeform textual phrase stating the reason as articulated by the referring physician, or as a standard reason selected from a drop-down list or other GUI dialog on the referral form, or as a billable order code such as an International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code commonly used for medical insurance billing in the United States, as a combination of one or more of the foregoing, or so forth. 
     To determine medical conditions for inclusion in the attention list  40 , another useful piece of information is the imaged anatomical region  54 , which may also be determined from the stored radiology examination  48 . The imaged anatomical region  54  may be stored as part of the header or other informational file or section of the stored radiology examination  48 , e.g. the header may indicate a “chest CT” or “brain MRI” or so forth. If there is no metadata indicating the imaged anatomical region then it is contemplated to determine the anatomical region  54  by analysis of the radiology images themselves, e.g. by segmenting one or two representative images to determine the imaged anatomy. 
     In addition to mining the stored radiology examination  48  for information  50 ,  52 ,  54 , the various available medical databases  10 ,  44 ,  46  may be mined to identify medical conditions that may be susceptible to review during interpretation of the radiology examination  48 . For example, the patient medical record in the EHR  44 , CVIS  46 , or so forth may be searched for keywords indicating existing medical conditions  56 . If such database is more structured using some standard data structure paradigm, then this may be leveraged to perform more focused searching for medical conditions. Similarly, the medical database(s)  10 ,  44 ,  46  may be searched to determine one or more “at-risk” medical conditions for which the patient is at heightened risk based on retrieved information such as demographic information  58 . For example, if the patient is a male over a certain age threshold then prostate cancer may be a determined at-risk medical condition; similarly, if the patient is a female over a certain age threshold then breast cancer may be a determined at-risk medical condition. At-risk medical conditions may also be determined as commonly co-occurring medical conditions that are statistically likely to co-occur with one of the existing medical conditions  56 . For example, if the patient has a certain cancer as an existing medical condition  56 , then an at-risk condition may be some other type of cancer that sometimes results from metastasis of the existing type of cancer. 
     With continuing reference to  FIG. 1 , the electronic processor  12  is further programmed to execute items identifier processes  60  that identifies items for inclusion in the attention list  40 . The reason for examination  52  is generally most informative for including in the attention list  40  new items  62  directed to the examination basis medical condition. The existing conditions  56  are generally most informative for including in the attention list  40  follow-up items  64  directed to existing medical conditions. Demographic information  58  is generally most informative for including in the attention list  40  screening items  66  directed to at-risk conditions for which the patient is at heightened risk. Some screening items  66  may also be included in the attention list  40  on the basis of the existing medical conditions  56 , e.g. a screening item may be directed to a medical condition that is statistically likely to co-occur with an existing medical condition the patient already has. The items identifier processes  60  also identify attention items on the basis of the imaging modality  50 , since some imaging modalities are not probative for some medical conditions. Likewise, the items identifier processes  60  also identify attention items on the basis of the imaged anatomical region  54 , since the medical condition can only be investigated by way of the radiology examination if it acquired images of an anatomical region in which the medical condition is present. (As one example, if the images do not capture the breast region then they cannot be used to investigate whether the patient has breast cancer). 
     The attention list dialog  42  is a representation of the attention list  40  that is shown on the display  22  of the radiology workstation  14 . The attention list dialog  42  presents the radiologist with the items of the attention list  40 . The illustrative attention list dialog  42  presents the items grouped by the new items  62 , the follow-up items  64 , and the screening items  66 ; however, other organizational paradigms are contemplated. Of course, a given instance of an attention list for a given patient may not include all three of these categories of items. 
     With reference to  FIG. 2 , an illustrative implementation of the items identifier processes  60  for identifying existing and at-risk medical conditions is diagrammatically shown. As already discussed, the existing medical condition(s)  56  and the demographic information  58  are mined from one or more medical databases  44 ,  46 . For unstructured medical data this may be done by searching the electronic patient medical records for relevant keywords such as the names of medical conditions and/or terms such as “Reason for visit”, “Diagnosis”, “Age”, “Gender”, “Ethnicity”, and so forth. For structured medical data, the underlying data structure may be leveraged in the retrieval of the salient information  56 ,  58 . The goal of the processing diagrammatically shown in  FIG. 2  is to identify one or more additional medical condition(s)  70  (where “additional” indicates conditions in addition to the stated reason for examination  52 ). To this end, any identified existing medical conditions  56  may be directly identified as additional medical conditions to consider (optionally after filtering out any of these that correspond to the reason for examination). Additionally, the existing medical condition(s)  56  may be compared against a look-up table or other data structure identifying statistically commonly co-existing medical conditions, that is, associating a given medical condition with one or more other medical conditions that commonly co-occur with the given medical condition. This analysis may generate one or more at-risk medical condition(s)  72  based on co-occurrence to be added to the list of additional medical condition(s)  70 . Similarly, the demographic information  58  may be compared against a look-up table or other data structure identifying at-risk medical conditions for which a person in the demographic class is at heightened risk. For example, a male patient over the age of  50  may be at heightened risk for prostate cancer, while a female patient over the age of  50  may be at heightened risk for breast cancer. This analysis may generate one or more at-risk medical condition(s)  74  on the basis of demographics to be added to the list of additional medical condition(s)  70 . 
     With reference to  FIG. 3 , an illustrative implementation of the items identifier processes  60  for selecting attention items directed to the examination basis medical condition(s) determined from the reason for examination  52  and any additional medical conditions  70  (see  FIG. 2 ) is described. To generate attention items directed to the examination basis medical condition(s)  62  (that is, the new items  62  of  FIG. 1 ), the reason for examination  52  is analyzed to identify one or more examination basis medical conditions. This is done using a look-up table  80 , whose content depends on the format of the reason for examination  52 . For example, if the reason for examination  52  is given as a billable order code (e.g. an ICD code) then the look-up table  80  may suitably link billable order codes with medical conditions. If the reason for examination  52  is given as a textual phrase or statement of the reason for examination, then the look-up table  80  may suitably link clinical keywords with medical conditions. The content of the reason for examination  52  such as the ICD code(s) and/or clinical keywords extracted from its text is input to the look-up table  80  to identify one or more examination basis medical condition(s)  82 . One or more attention items  62  directed to the examination basis medical condition(s)  82  are then added to the attention list  40 . 
     For each additional medical condition  86  (which is one of the additional medical conditions  70  identified by the processing of  FIG. 2 ), it is determined in a decision block  90  whether the additional medical condition  82  is reviewable using the imaging modality  50  of the radiology examination, and if so it is further determined in a decision block  92  whether the additional medical condition  82  is reviewable by images of the imaged anatomical region  54  of the radiology examination. (The order of these tests  90 ,  92  may be swapped). If either the “reviewable via modality” test  90  or the “reviewable via imaged anatomical region” test  92  is not passed, then the additional medical condition  86  is determined at  94  to be not reviewable by the radiology examination, and the additional medical condition  86  accordingly does not serve as the basis for any attention item(s) being included in the attention list  40 . On the other hand, if the additional medical condition  82  passes both tests  90 ,  92 , then it is determined at  96  to be reviewable by the radiology examination, and one or more attention items  98  directed to the additional medical condition  86  are included in the attention list  40 . 
     The attention items  62 ,  98  may be determined using a look-up table listing one or more attention items for each examination basis medical condition  82  and for each reviewable medical condition  96 . The look-up table may be organized by modality, as the attention items for a given medical condition may be different for different imaging modalities. As an example, although a malignant tumor may be reviewable using either the CT imaging modality or the PET imaging modality, in the case of CT the attention item may include measuring physical dimensions of the tumor whereas in the case of PET the attention item may include measuring a standardized uptake value (SUV) for the tumor. Similarly, in some instances the look-up table may be organized by imaged anatomical region to the extent that the attention items for a given medical condition may depend upon the imaged anatomical region. For example, a follow-up item for an existing cancer may include measuring the malignant tumor if the imaged anatomical region includes the organ containing the tumor; whereas, if the imaged anatomical region does not include the tumor then the follow-up item may include searching for evidence of metastatic expansion of the cancer into the imaged anatomical region. 
     With reference to  FIG. 4 , the illustrative embodiment of the attention list dialog  42  that is displayed on the radiology workstation  14  is shown. The illustrative attention list dialog  42  includes “show evidence” buttons  100 . More generally, an evidence input  100  is optionally provided for each item of the attention list  40  which is directed to a reviewable additional medical condition, and optionally also for each item directed to an examination basis medical condition. In response to activation of the evidence input  100  for an item of the attention list  40  which is directed to an examination basis medical condition, the workstation  14  displays information  102  including the reason for examination  52  and optionally also supporting statistics or other supporting information justifying the action item in view of the reason for examination. For example, if the underlying examination basis medical condition is a certain type of cancer and the related attention item is to check for metastasis in the lungs, then the supporting statistics may cite to a recent medical paper demonstrating such metastasis is a common consequence of this type of cancer. 
     In response to activation of the evidence input  100  for an item of the attention list  40  which is directed to a reviewable additional medical condition, the information  104  retrieved from the one or more medical databases  44 ,  46  from which the reviewable additional medical condition was determined may be displayed. For example, the medical report making the initial diagnosis of the additional medical condition may be linked. Similarly, in response to activation of the evidence input  100  for an item of the attention list  40  which is directed to a reviewable at-risk medical condition, the information  106  retrieved from the one or more medical databases  44 ,  46  from which the reviewable at-risk medical condition was determined may be displayed. For example, the relevant patient demographic information may be displayed, or the existing medical condition for which the at-risk medical condition is a common co-occurrence may be identified. There are merely illustrative examples, and more generally the evidence inputs  100  may display or link to any type of information, document, representative image, or the like that may be of informational value to the radiologist in assessing whether and/or in what way the attention item should be addressed. 
     With reference back to  FIG. 1  and with further reference to  FIG. 5 , in some embodiments the attention list user interface operates dynamically to remove items from the attention list  40  (and from the corresponding attention list dialog  42 ) as the items are addressed by the radiologist. A suitable illustrative attention list item checkoff process  110  is illustrated in  FIG. 5 . The process starts in an operation  112  by setting a “report complete” parameter to “no” or some equivalent value indicating that there are still items remaining on the attention list  40 . In an operation  114  the attention list dialog  42  is displayed. In an operation  116 , the entry of the radiology report (via window  32  shown in  FIG. 1 ) is monitored for indications that an item of the attention list  40  has been addressed. In an operation  118 , a report entry is detected which constitutes a finding associated with an item (designated item #N without loss of generality) of the attention list. This detection  118  may be done, for example, by detecting entry of a keyword associated with the attention item, or in the case of a (semi-) structured radiology report detection of entry of a field associated with the attention item, or so forth. In a variant embodiment, the radiologist may affirmatively indicate via a selection  119  that an attention item #N should be removed. In response to the detection  118  or user selection  119 , in an operation  120  the attention item #N is removed from the attention list  40 . At a decision point  122 , if the attention list is now empty then in an operation  124  the “report complete” parameter is set to “yes” or some equivalent value indicating that there are no remaining items on the attention list  40 . If the decision point  122  determines that items remain on the attention list  40 , then flow returns to display operation  114  to update the attention list dialog  42  to reflect removal of item #N, and the processing continues. This processing ensures that the attention list  40  is updated to reflect completion of attention items, thereby enabling the radiologist to particularly focus on those items that remain to be completed. 
     In some embodiments, the attention list item checkoff process  110  enforces completion of all items of the attention list  40  by the following illustrative operations. In an operation  130  the radiology workstation  14  detects that the radiologist is selecting to file the radiology report. This can be done, for example, by detecting selection of a “Save” button activated to save the radiology report or by any other suitable approach operative in the context of the mechanism by which the radiology workstation  14  files a completed radiology report. In response to the detection  130 , at a decision  132  it is determined whether the report is complete, i.e. whether all attention items of the (original) attention list  40  have been addressed. This can be done in the illustrative embodiment by testing the “report complete” parameter, or in another embodiment by counting the number of items on the attention list  40 . In an operation  134 , if the report is complete (i.e. no remaining attention items) then the radiology report is filed in the usual way implemented by the radiology workstation  14 . On the other hand, if the decision  132  finds that there are remaining attention items that have not yet been addressed, then in an operation  136  the radiologist is requested to address those remaining attention items. 
     If the option  119  to manually remove attention items is omitted, then the processing  130 ,  132 ,  134 ,  136  enforces that the radiology report must address every attention item. This maximally ensures comprehensiveness of the completed radiology report, but at the possible risk of forcing the radiologist to include entries in the report that he or she may deem inappropriate. On the other hand, if the option  119  is provided then the radiologist has the ability to omit such items from the report thereby providing more flexibility to the radiologist at the possible cost of a less comprehensive completed radiology report. 
     It will be appreciated that the illustrative computational components such as the attention list user interface  40  may be embodied as a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions executable by an electronic processor (e.g. the radiology workstation  14  which may be partially embodied as server computer  12  or other computing hardware) to perform the disclosed operations. The non-transitory storage medium may, for example, comprise a hard disk drive, RAID, or other magnetic storage medium; a solid state drive, flash drive, electronically erasable read-only memory (EEROM) or other electronic memory; an optical disk or other optical storage; various combinations thereof; or so forth. 
     Some further/variant embodiments are described in the following. 
     In another illustrative embodiment, the attention list user interface includes: (1) a module to automatically identify an accurate coordinate or region-of-interest findings related to reason for examination, e.g. using a computer-aided detection (CADe) system; (2) a module to automatically review patient clinical context and identify existing problems and follow-ups; (3) a module to automatically determine organs at risk; (4) a module to determine whether the current imaging study (i.e. radiology examination) is appropriate for reviewing (2) and (3) based on modality and field of view (FOV, i.e. the imaged anatomical region); (5) a graphical user interface to present results of module (4) as well as access to related material; and (6) an agent that tracks whether the reader (e.g. radiologist performing the radiology reporting) has observed all suggested areas of interest. These various modules and agent may be implemented, for example, as a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions readable and executable by an electronic processor  12 ,  14 . Illustrative examples of modules/agents (1)-(6) are described in further detail in the following. 
     Module (1) is a module to automatically identify an accurate coordinate or region-of-interest findings related to reason for exam (CADe). This module can potentially contain automatic finding detection tools such as lung nodule detection. Given the reason for examination and the modality, automatic image processing/machine learning algorithms can be utilized to automatically identify either exact coordinates or a rough region-of-interest to bring to radiologist&#39;s attention. If image processing/machine learning algorithms are not available for automatic detection, population statistic-based knowledge can be leveraged, e.g., which area of liver is the most common site for tumors given current patient demographics and based on data from similar patients within the population. 
     Module (2) is a module to automatically review patient clinical context and identify existing problems and follow ups. This module identifies existing problems (i.e. medical conditions) of the patient that could potentially be followed up. This module may comprise sub-modules for crawling through patient clinical history and context (EMR, lab results, previous radiology reports, previous pathology reports, etc.) and detect and extract relevant information (such as mention of findings with follow up recommendation). Such sub-modules may employ indexed based search engines, natural language processing (NLP), concept extraction based on ontologies, etc. 
     Module (3) is a module to automatically determine organs at risk. This module automatically determines which other organs of the patients besides the organ(s) related to reason for examination and organ(s) related to existing problem(s) could potentially be at risk of developing an abnormality given patient&#39;s ongoing problems as well as risk of developing new abnormalities given patient demographics and information available from similar patients. For example, if the patient is known to have advanced prostate cancer, there is a high likelihood that the cancer might have metastases to adjacent organs such as bladder or pelvis. Also, given patient&#39;s age, sex, family history, etc. there is a high likelihood that the patient is at risk of developing lung cancer. 
     Module (4) is a module to determine whether current imaging study is appropriate for reviewing (2) and (3) based on modality and FOV. This module determines whether the current imaging modality (CT, MRI, etc.) and FOV (i.e. imaged anatomical region, e.g. chest, abdomen, etc.) is appropriate for reviewing targets identified by modules (1), (2) and (3). Appropriateness for an imaging modality pertains to whether the organ of interest is “visible” in terms of resolution, contrast and/or function. Appropriateness for FOV pertains to whether the current image&#39;s FOV captures the whole (or sufficient) extent of the anatomy of interest. 
     Module (5) is a graphical user interface to present results of module (4) as well as access to related material. The graphical user interface provides a medium for the end user (e.g. radiologist) to review and access the outcome of module (4) as well as the evidence behind the decision made through steps (1)-(4). Such a GUI is preferably seamlessly integrated into the radiologist&#39;s workflow without any interruption or distraction. The attention list can be made “clickable” so that the radiologist can quickly navigate from one suggested region of interest to the next. In one embodiment, only the regions of interest are highlighted that are visible on opened sequences. If the user clicks a region of interest in a sequence that is not open, it may open as a pop-up, rather than jumping to the corresponding slice. 
     Module (6) is an agent that checks if the reader has read all areas of interest. The graphical user interface (GUI) can further be augmented with interactive logic that allows the user to indicate “seen” or “not relevant” to indicate whether an item has been addressed. If any attention item has not been addressed at the end of the reading, i.e. when the radiologist acts to file the radiology report, this can be brought to the radiologist&#39;s attention, and may optionally also block finalization and filing of the radiology report. The agent (6) may perform tracking automatically through scrolling behavior or eyeball-tracking technology, if a certain region of interest is interrogated. A certain time threshold can be implemented to mark a region as “seen”. 
     The invention has been described with reference to the preferred embodiments. Modifications and alterations may occur to others upon reading and understanding the preceding detailed description. It is intended that the invention be constructed as including all such modifications and alterations insofar as they come within the scope of the appended claims or the equivalents thereof.