John W Robinson1, Patrick C Brennan2, Claudia Mello-Thoms2, Sarah J Lewis2. 1. Medical Image Optimisation and Perception Group, Discipline of Medical Radiation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, 75 East Street, Lidcombe, 2141, NSW, Australia. john.robinsonmrs@sydney.edu.au. 2. Medical Image Optimisation and Perception Group, Discipline of Medical Radiation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, 75 East Street, Lidcombe, 2141, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of specific reporting tasks on the performance of radiologists when reading chest radiographs. METHODS: Ten experienced radiologists read a set of 40 postero-anterior (PA) chest radiographs: 21 nodule free and 19 with a proven solitary nodule. There were two reporting conditions: an unframed task (UFT) to report any abnormality and a framed task (FT) reporting only lung nodule/s. Jackknife free-response operating characteristic (JAFROC) figure of merit (FOM), specificity, location sensitivity and number of true positive (TP), false positive (FP), true negative (TN) and false negative (FN) decisions were used for analysis. RESULTS: JAFROC FOM for tasks showed a significant reduction in performance for framed tasks (P = 0.006) and an associated decrease in specificity (P = 0.011) but no alteration to the location sensitivity score. There was a significant increase in number of FP decisions made during framed versus unframed tasks for nodule-containing (P = 0.005) and nodule-free (P = 0.011) chest radiographs. No significant differences in TP were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists report more FP decisions when given specific reporting instructions to search for nodules on chest radiographs. The relevance of clinical history supplied to radiologists is called into question and may induce a negative effect. KEY POINTS: • Framed reporting tasks increases false positive rates when searching for pulmonary nodules • False positive results were observed in both nodule-containing and nodule-free cases • Radiologist's decision-making may be influenced by clinical history in thoracic imaging.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of specific reporting tasks on the performance of radiologists when reading chest radiographs. METHODS: Ten experienced radiologists read a set of 40 postero-anterior (PA) chest radiographs: 21 nodule free and 19 with a proven solitary nodule. There were two reporting conditions: an unframed task (UFT) to report any abnormality and a framed task (FT) reporting only lung nodule/s. Jackknife free-response operating characteristic (JAFROC) figure of merit (FOM), specificity, location sensitivity and number of true positive (TP), false positive (FP), true negative (TN) and false negative (FN) decisions were used for analysis. RESULTS: JAFROC FOM for tasks showed a significant reduction in performance for framed tasks (P = 0.006) and an associated decrease in specificity (P = 0.011) but no alteration to the location sensitivity score. There was a significant increase in number of FP decisions made during framed versus unframed tasks for nodule-containing (P = 0.005) and nodule-free (P = 0.011) chest radiographs. No significant differences in TP were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists report more FP decisions when given specific reporting instructions to search for nodules on chest radiographs. The relevance of clinical history supplied to radiologists is called into question and may induce a negative effect. KEY POINTS: • Framed reporting tasks increases false positive rates when searching for pulmonary nodules • False positive results were observed in both nodule-containing and nodule-free cases • Radiologist's decision-making may be influenced by clinical history in thoracic imaging.
Authors: J Shiraishi; S Katsuragawa; J Ikezoe; T Matsumoto; T Kobayashi; K Komatsu; M Matsui; H Fujita; Y Kodera; K Doi Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: J W Robinson; J T Ryan; M F McEntee; S J Lewis; M G Evanoff; L A Rainford; P C Brennan Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2012-05-09 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: K S Berbaum; E A Franken; D D Dorfman; T Barloon; S R Ell; C H Lu; W Smith; M M Abu-Yousef Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 1986-07 Impact factor: 6.016