Literature DB >> 29528716

Heuristics and Cognitive Error in Medical Imaging.

Jason N Itri1, Sohil H Patel2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The field of cognitive science has provided important insights into mental processes underlying the interpretation of imaging examinations. Despite these insights, diagnostic error remains a major obstacle in the goal to improve quality in radiology. In this article, we describe several types of cognitive bias that lead to diagnostic errors in imaging and discuss approaches to mitigate cognitive biases and diagnostic error.
CONCLUSION: Radiologists rely on heuristic principles to reduce complex tasks of assessing probabilities and predicting values into simpler judgmental operations. These mental shortcuts allow rapid problem solving based on assumptions and past experiences. Heuristics used in the interpretation of imaging studies are generally helpful but can sometimes result in cognitive biases that lead to significant errors. An understanding of the causes of cognitive biases can lead to the development of educational content and systematic improvements that mitigate errors and improve the quality of care provided by radiologists.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bias; cognitive bias; diagnostic error; heuristics; metacognition; quality improvement

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29528716     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.17.18907

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


  9 in total

1.  Features of diffuse gliomas that are misdiagnosed on initial neuroimaging: a case control study.

Authors:  M D Maldonado; P Batchala; D Ornan; C Fadul; D Schiff; J N Itri; R Jain; S H Patel
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2018-06-29       Impact factor: 4.130

2.  Risk Factors for Perceptual-versus-Interpretative Errors in Diagnostic Neuroradiology.

Authors:  S H Patel; C L Stanton; S G Miller; J T Patrie; J N Itri; T M Shepherd
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2019-07-11       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 3.  The CT scout view: complementary value added to abdominal CT interpretation.

Authors:  Matthew H Lee; Meghan G Lubner; Vincent M Mellnick; Christine O Menias; Sanjeev Bhalla; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2021-06-01

4.  Variations in breast cancer detection rates during mammogram-reading sessions: does experience have an impact?

Authors:  Abdulaziz S Alshabibi; Moayyad E Suleiman; Salman M Albeshan; Robert Heard; Patrick C Brennan
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-11-04       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Diagnostic Errors in Cerebrovascular Pathology: Retrospective Analysis of a Neuroradiology Database at a Large Tertiary Academic Medical Center.

Authors:  G Biddle; R Assadsangabi; K Broadhead; L Hacein-Bey; V Ivanovic
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2022-08-04       Impact factor: 4.966

6.  Image interpretation: Learning analytics-informed education opportunities.

Authors:  Elana Thau; Manuela Perez; Martin V Pusic; Martin Pecaric; David Rizzuti; Kathy Boutis
Journal:  AEM Educ Train       Date:  2021-04-01

7.  Clinicians' heuristic assessments of radiographs compared with Kellgren-Lawrence and Ahlbäck ordinal grading: an exploratory study of knee radiographs using paired comparisons.

Authors:  Mads Møller Pedersen; Kristian Breds Geoffroy Mongelard; Anne Mørup-Petersen; Karl Bang Christensen; Anders Odgaard
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-03-08       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Addressing fairness in artificial intelligence for medical imaging.

Authors:  Rodrigo Echeveste; Enzo Ferrante; María Agustina Ricci Lara
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2022-08-06       Impact factor: 17.694

9.  From Bayes-optimal to heuristic decision-making in a two-alternative forced choice task with an information-theoretic bounded rationality model.

Authors:  Cecilia Lindig-León; Nehchal Kaur; Daniel A Braun
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 5.152

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.