Literature DB >> 22109344

The "memory effect" for repeated radiologic observations.

John T Ryan1, Tamara Miner Haygood, José-Miguel Yamal, Michael Evanoff, Paul O'Sullivan, Mark McEntee, Patrick C Brennan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: It is assumed that memory has a role to play in repeated radiologic observation studies. The main objective of this study was to examine this assumption and evaluate the effect that memory may have on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methods.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A two-center observer study was performed with a total of 24 experienced radiologists. Over two viewings, chest radiographs showing the tip of a central line in either the superior vena cava or the azygos vein were presented. Half of the images were changed between the two viewings. The participants' attention was directed on the first reading to the position of the central line. At the second reading, the participants were asked to assign a confidence score on a 6-point scale about whether each image had been included in the first reading.
RESULTS: For the images that were scored as "definitely included" in the first viewing, readers at our two centers recalled only an average of 2.5 and 4.9 of the 20 repeated images, which is close to a random allocation of images to each score. As the confidence levels diminished for positive identification of repeated images, the numbers of correct answers increased. For images scored as not having been previously included, the numbers of correct answers remained low suggesting that identification of nonrepeated images is poor. Images with a greater number of incidental abnormalities and with more striking abnormalities were recognized more accurately than those with fewer and less striking abnormalities.
CONCLUSION: This study shows a "memory effect" when the same images are presented at a second viewing within a small interval period. This effect appears to occur mainly at low confidence levels. These results suggest that including images with obvious incidental abnormalities in reader performance studies should be avoided.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22109344     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.5859

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  11 in total

1.  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

2.  Verification of DICOM GSDF in complex backgrounds.

Authors:  David L Leong; Louise Rainford; Tamara Miner Haygood; Gary J Whitman; Philip M Tchou; William R Geiser; Selin Carkaci; Patrick C Brennan
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Intercountry analysis of breast density classification using visual grading.

Authors:  Christine N Damases; Peter Hogg; Mark F McEntee
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-06-14       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  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

5.  CT colonography: effect of computer-aided detection of colonic polyps as a second and concurrent reader for general radiologists with moderate experience in CT colonography.

Authors:  Thomas Mang; Luca Bogoni; Vikram X Anand; Dass Chandra; Andrew J Curtin; Anna S Lev-Toaff; Gerardo Hermosillo; Ralph Noah; Vikas Raykar; Marcos Salganicoff; Robert Shaw; Susan Summerton; Rafel F R Tappouni; Helmut Ringel; Michael Weber; Matthias Wolf; Nancy A Obuchowski
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-05-10       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Memory bias in observer-performance literature.

Authors:  Tamara Miner Haygood; Samantha Smith; Jia Sun
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-09-24

7.  Detection of the intimal tear in aortic dissection and ulcer-like projection in intramural hematoma: usefulness of full-phase retrospective ECG-gated CT angiography.

Authors:  Satoru Yanagaki; Takuya Ueda; Atsuro Masuda; Hideki Ota; Yuta Onaka; Masatoshi Kojima; Takashi Hattori; Wahei Mihara; Kei Takase
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2020-07-24       Impact factor: 2.374

8.  Observer Variability in BI-RADS Ultrasound Features and Its Influence on Computer-Aided Diagnosis of Breast Masses.

Authors:  Laith R Sultan; Ghizlane Bouzghar; Benjamin J Levenback; Nauroze A Faizi; Santosh S Venkatesh; Emily F Conant; Chandra M Sehgal
Journal:  Adv Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2015-01-09

9.  If you don't find it often, you often don't find it: why some cancers are missed in breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Karla K Evans; Robyn L Birdwell; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-05-30       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Bone Windows for Distinguishing Malignant from Benign Primary Bone Tumors on FDG PET/CT.

Authors:  Colleen M Costelloe; Hubert H Chuang; Beth A Chasen; Tinsu Pan; Patricia S Fox; Roland L Bassett; John E Madewell
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2013-08-09       Impact factor: 4.207

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.