Kathleen Michelle Hughes MD, Presenter: Nothing to Disclose

Richard Earnest Sharpe BS, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Priti Anilkumar Shah MD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Jeffrey Takeshi Hirata MD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Eliot Lawrence Siegel MD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

The purpose of this exhibit is to demonstrate the performance of four different search engines in radiology related queries.

The different search engines utilized in the study were "kosmix.com", "medstory.com", "goldminer.arrs.org", and "yottalook.com". Every 100th search (with no change in spelling or word order) was extracted from a database of over 20,000 actual queries made using yottalook.com and was used to initiate a search in each search engine. The search results were evaluated based on the experiences of twelve radiology residents and attendings who searched each of the four different engines using the same query. Evaluation was based on the number of returns, whether the question was answered, search result relevance, whether the results were radiology related, ease of use, and whether there was a problem with the search.

Results from 48 searches demonstrate advantages and disadvantages of each engine. Medstory returned over 10 results per query 100% of the time, while yottalook, kosmix, and goldminer returned less than 10 queries 8%, 16%, and 42% respectively. Goldminer and yottalook returned no results in 17% and 8% respectively. A problem was encountered in approximately 17% of searches with goldminer, kosmix and medstory, and 8% with yottalook. Search results were deemed relevent 50% of the time in goldminer, 58% in kosmix, 83% in medstory, and 92% in yottalook. Results were radiology related 33% of the time in medstory, 58% in kosmix, 83% in goldminer, and 92% in yottalook. In 42% of the searches, the question was answered in goldminer compared to 83% in both kosmix and medstory, and 92% in yottalook. As far as ease of search, 50% of kosmix and medstory, 75% of goldminer, and 92% of yottalook searches were classified as easy.

Each of the search engines evaluated demonstrated unique strengths and weaknesses. Some are more geared to searching the diverse radiology database, where as some are more geared to the general public. The data from our study can be used to help choose a search engine optimized for the desired results. (RGC Grant CUH K9961)

This exhibit will help radiologists optimize the time spent searching for radiology related content on the Internet.

Hughes, K, Sharpe, R, Shah, P, Hirata, J, Siegel, E, Performance of Internet Search Engines on Radiology Queries.  Radiological Society of North America 2007 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, November 25 - November 30, 2007 ,Chicago IL. http://archive.rsna.org/2007/5008199.html