Literature DB >> 10516859

How experience and training influence mammography expertise.

C F Nodine1, H L Kundel, C Mello-Thoms, S P Weinstein, S G Orel, D C Sullivan, E F Conant.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: The authors evaluated the influence of perceptual and cognitive skills in mammography detection and interpretation by testing three groups representing different levels of mammography expertise in terms of experience, training, and talent with a mammography screening-diagnostic task.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred fifty mammograms, composed of unilateral cranial-caudal and mediolateral oblique views, were displayed in pairs on a digital workstation to 19 radiology residents, three experienced mammographers, and nine mammography technologists. One-third of the mammograms showed malignant lesions; two-thirds were malignancy-free. Observers interacted with the display to indicate whether each image contained no malignant lesions or suspicious lesions indicating malignancy. Decision time was measured as the lesions were localized, classified, and rated for decision confidence.
RESULTS: Compared with performance of experts, alternative free response operating characteristic performance for residents was significantly lower and equivalent to that of technologists. Analysis of overall performance showed that, as level of expertise decreased, false-positive results exerted a greater effect on overall decision accuracy over the time course of image perception. This defines the decision speed-accuracy relationship that characterizes mammography expertise.
CONCLUSION: Differences in resident performance resulted primarily from lack of perceptual-learning experience during mammography training, which limited object recognition skills and made it difficult to determine differences between malignant lesions, benign lesions, and normal image perturbations. A proposed solution is systematic mentor-guided training that links image perception to feedback about the reasons underlying decision making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10516859     DOI: 10.1016/s1076-6332(99)80252-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  28 in total

1.  CT colonography: effect of experience and training on reader performance.

Authors:  Stuart A Taylor; Steve Halligan; David Burling; Simon Morley; Paul Bassett; Wendy Atkin; Clive I Bartram
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-02-10       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists.

Authors:  William E Barlow; Chen Chi; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; Carl D'Orsi; Gary Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-12-15       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Effects of familiarity on neural activity in monkey inferior temporal lobe.

Authors:  Britt Anderson; Ryan E B Mruczek; Keisuke Kawasaki; David Sheinberg
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2008-02-21       Impact factor: 5.357

Review 4.  Anniversary paper: History and status of CAD and quantitative image analysis: the role of Medical Physics and AAPM.

Authors:  Maryellen L Giger; Heang-Ping Chan; John Boone
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Large-scale medical image annotation with crowd-powered algorithms.

Authors:  Eric Heim; Tobias Roß; Alexander Seitel; Keno März; Bram Stieltjes; Matthias Eisenmann; Johannes Lebert; Jasmin Metzger; Gregor Sommer; Alexander W Sauter; Fides Regina Schwartz; Andreas Termer; Felix Wagner; Hannes Götz Kenngott; Lena Maier-Hein
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-09-08

6.  Mastering Electrocardiogram Interpretation Skills Through a Perceptual and Adaptive Learning Module.

Authors:  Sally Krasne; Carl D Stevens; Philip J Kellman; James T Niemann
Journal:  AEM Educ Train       Date:  2020-05-05

Review 7.  Informatics in radiology: what can you see in a single glance and how might this guide visual search in medical images?

Authors:  Trafton Drew; Karla Evans; Melissa L-H Võ; Francine L Jacobson; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2012-10-25       Impact factor: 5.333

Review 8.  Review of prospects and challenges of eye tracking in volumetric imaging.

Authors:  Antje C Venjakob; Claudia R Mello-Thoms
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-09-29

9.  An expert advantage in detecting unfamiliar visual signals in noise.

Authors:  Zahra Hussain
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-09-30       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Comparing search patterns in digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography: an eye tracking study.

Authors:  Avi Aizenman; Trafton Drew; Krista A Ehinger; Dianne Georgian-Smith; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-10-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.