Literature DB >> 15766687

"Memory effect" in observer performance studies of mammograms.

Lara A Hardesty1, Marie A Ganott, Christiane M Hakim, Cathy S Cohen, Ronald J Clearfield, David Gur.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate breast radiologists' recognition of mammograms showing cancers that they correctly detected or "missed" during clinical interpretations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two similar experiments were conducted. In the first, 33 bilateral screening mammograms were reviewed by four breast imagers. These included five cancers that each radiologist had detected, two cancers that each radiologist had "missed," and five mammograms recalled by other radiologists that were not cancer. Radiologists were asked if they had interpreted the mammogram in clinic and if the mammogram was suspicious for cancer. In the second experiment, four different breast imagers reviewed 48 mammograms that included five cancers that each radiologist had detected, two cancers that each radiologist had "missed," and five mammograms that were recalled by each radiologist but were not cancer. Using chi-square analysis, the performance of the radiologists on screening mammograms they had read in clinic was compared with their performance on mammograms read in clinic by other radiologists.
RESULTS: Seven of eight radiologists did not remember interpreting any of the mammograms in clinic. One radiologist correctly remembered interpreting one mammogram in clinic, but interpreted it incorrectly. Average performance showed no significant difference (P = .60) between mammograms they had interpreted in clinic and those interpreted by others.
CONCLUSION: Radiologists do not remember most mammograms showing cancer that they have interpreted, either correctly or incorrectly, after they are mixed with mammograms showing cancer that were interpreted by other radiologists. Screening mammograms can be used in observer performance studies in which the interpreting radiologist participates as an observer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15766687     DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2004.11.026

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


  13 in total

Review 1.  Systematic review: bias in imaging studies - the effect of manipulating clinical context, recall bias and reporting intensity.

Authors:  Darren Boone; Steve Halligan; Susan Mallett; Stuart A Taylor; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-09-30       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Dual-modality breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Mark B Williams; Patricia G Judy; Spencer Gunn; Stanislaw Majewski
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Radiologists remember mountains better than radiographs, or do they?

Authors:  Karla K Evans; Edith M Marom; Myrna C B Godoy; Diana Palacio; Tara Sagebiel; Sonia Betancourt Cuellar; Mark McEntee; Charles Tian; Patrick C Brennan; Tamara Miner Haygood
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-11-03

4.  Digital breast tomosynthesis within a symptomatic "one-stop breast clinic" for characterization of subtle findings.

Authors:  G J Bansal; P Young
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Relationships between expertise and distinctiveness: Abnormal medical images lead to enhanced memory performance only in experts.

Authors:  Hayden M Schill; Jeremy M Wolfe; Timothy F Brady
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2021-04-14

6.  Consistency of response and image recognition, pulmonary nodules.

Authors:  T M Haygood; M A Q Liu; E Galvan; R Bassett; W A Murphy; C S Ng; A Matamoros; E M Marom
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 7.  Radiologists and Clinical Trials: Part 2: Practical Statistical Methods for Understanding and Monitoring Independent Reader Performance.

Authors:  David L Raunig; Annette M Schmid; Colin G Miller; Richard C Walovitch; Michael O'Connor; Klaus Noever; Ivalina Hristova; Michael O'Neal; Guenther Brueggenwerth; Robert R Ford
Journal:  Ther Innov Regul Sci       Date:  2021-07-09       Impact factor: 1.778

8.  Does visual expertise improve visual recognition memory?

Authors:  Karla K Evans; Michael A Cohen; Rosemary Tambouret; Todd Horowitz; Erica Kreindel; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy.

Authors:  T M Svahn; D P Chakraborty; D Ikeda; S Zackrisson; Y Do; S Mattsson; I Andersson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  The "laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations.

Authors:  David Gur; Andriy I Bandos; Cathy S Cohen; Christiane M Hakim; Lara A Hardesty; Marie A Ganott; Ronald L Perrin; William R Poller; Ratan Shah; Jules H Sumkin; Luisa P Wallace; Howard E Rockette
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-08-05       Impact factor: 11.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.