  Medical errors are a major public health concern and a leading cause of death
worldwide. Many healthcare centers and hospitals use reporting systems where
medical practitioners write a preliminary medical report and the report is
later reviewed, revised, and finalized by a more experienced physician. The
revisions range from stylistic to corrections of critical errors or
misinterpretations of the case. Due to the large quantity of reports written
daily, it is often difficult to manually and thoroughly review all the
finalized reports to find such errors and learn from them. To address this
challenge, we propose a novel ranking approach, consisting of textual and
ontological overlaps between the preliminary and final versions of reports. The
approach learns to rank the reports based on the degree of discrepancy between
the versions. This allows medical practitioners to easily identify and learn
from the reports in which their interpretation most substantially differed from
that of the attending physician (who finalized the report). This is a crucial
step towards uncovering potential errors and helping medical practitioners to
learn from such errors, thus improving patient-care in the long run. We
evaluate our model on a dataset of radiology reports and show that our approach
outperforms both previously-proposed approaches and more recent language models
by 4.5% to 15.4%.
