Proof-read my article, please

English isn't my native language and since I've got a dreadful deadline it would really helpful if a native speaker could look through a piece of this article that I can't seem to get right. I appreciate all the feedback I can get.


"Pulmonary infiltration is associated with serious clinical conditions, such as pneumonia.
By comparison, portable bedside chest x-ray has roughly the same sensitivity and specificity rate when diagnosing pulmonary infiltration while failing to detect nearly a fifth of the actual pulmonary infiltrations. Consequently, this caused equally as many incorrect diagnoses.

The structure of the language used in the reports may have caused misinterpretations. Radiology reports are not standardized and implicit factors was interpreted with caution. We have surmised that occurring cases of pulmonary infiltration and pneumothorax have been described in the reports, although a radiologist might have chosen to omit descriptions of clinically irrelevant cases of pulmonary atelectasis.
Another possibility of detection bias was considered; the chest x-ray was performed shortly after some of the chest CT examinations and thus the radiologists could describe a finding on the basis of what had been observed in the CT examination. Bias could have been the inclusion criteria, considering supposed alterations in those patients who had to undergo a CT examination shortly after the chest x-ray."

I am a native English speaker and that looks fine to me.

Great. No suggestions on how to make it look even better?

"Radiology reports are not standardized and implicit factors was interpreted with caution."

I think here you should change "was" to "were"

Yes!

Cheers.

Pulmonary infiltration is commonly associated with serious clinical conditions such as pneumonia. By comparison, a portable bed-side chest x-ray has roughly the same sensitivity and specificity rate when diagnosing pulmonary infiltration; however fails to detect nearly a fifth of the actual pulmonary infiltrations. Consequently, this leads to equally as many incorrect diagnoses.


The structure of the language used in the reports may have caused such misinterpretations. Because radiology reports are not standardized, implicit factors were interpreted with caution. We have surmised that, occurring cases of pulmonary infiltration and pneumothorax have been described in the reports; although a radiologist might have chosed to omit descriptions of clinically irrelevant cases of pulmonary atelectasis.

Another possibility of detection bias was considered; the ches x-ray was performed shortly after some of the chest CT examinations and thus the radiologists could describer a finding on the basis of what had been observed in the CT examination. Bias could have been the inclusion criteria, considering supposed alterations in those patients who had to undergo a CT examination shortly after the chest x-ray.

Could you please motivate your corrections...?

Ok, well, thank you for the feedback, although I do have a few objections:

"By comparison, a portable bed-side chest x-ray has roughly the same sensitivity and specificity rate when diagnosing pulmonary infiltration; however fails to detect nearly a fifth of the actual pulmonary infiltrations."

I may be Swedish but that's a misapplied semicolon.

"Consequently, this _leads to_ equally as many incorrect diagnoses."

I'm referring to the incorrect diagnoses in this particular study and thereof the formulation "this _caused_ euqually as many (...)".

"The structure of the language used in the reports may have caused _such_ misinterpretations"

It's an interlinear space in between suggesting I'm talking about something else. If I'll write 'such', well, I'd have to skip that space...

And anyway, these misinterpretations has got nothing to do with the earlier mentioned results (thereof the interlinear space).