Literature DB >> 8940325

Context bias. A problem in diagnostic radiology.

T K Egglin1, A R Feinstein.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether radiologists' interpretations of images are biased by their context and by prevalence of disease in other recently observed cases.
METHODS: A test set of 24 right pulmonary arteriograms with a 33% prevalence of pulmonary emboli (PE) was assembled and embedded in 2 larger groups of films. Group A contained 16 additional arteriograms, all showing PE involving the right lung, so that total prevalence was 60%. Group B contained 16 additional arteriograms without PE so that total prevalence was 20%. Six radiologists were randomly assigned to see either group first and then "cross over" to review the other group after a hiatus of at least 8 weeks. The direction of changes in a 5-point rating scale for the 2 readings of each film in the test set was compared with the sign test; mean sensitivity, specificity, and areas under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were compared with the paired t test.
RESULTS: In the context of group A's higher disease prevalence, radiologists shifted more of their diagnoses toward higher suspicion than expected by chance (P=.03, sign test). In group A, mean sensitivity for diagnosing PE was significantly higher (75% vs 60%; P=.04), and area under the ROC curve was significantly larger (0.88 vs 0.82; P=.02).
CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists' diagnoses are significantly influenced by the context of interpretation, even when spectrum and verification bias are avoided. This "context bias" effect is unique to the evaluation of subjectively interpreted tests, and illustrates the difficulty of obtaining unbiased estimates of diagnostic accuracy for both new and existing technologies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8940325     DOI: 10.1001/jama.276.21.1752

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  33 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.  Radiologists' interpretive skills in screening vs. diagnostic mammography: are they related?

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Andrea J Cook; Andy Bogart; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Stephen H Taplin; Diana S M Buist; Tracy Onega; Christoph I Lee; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 1.605

3.  Accuracy is in the eyes of the pathologist: The visual interpretive process and diagnostic accuracy with digital whole slide images.

Authors:  Tad T Brunyé; Ezgi Mercan; Donald L Weaver; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2017-01-10       Impact factor: 6.317

4.  The prevalence effect in a laboratory environment: Changing the confidence ratings.

Authors:  David Gur; Andriy I Bandos; Carl R Fuhrman; Amy H Klym; Jill L King; Howard E Rockette
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 3.173

5.  Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks.

Authors:  Jeremy M Wolfe; Todd S Horowitz; Michael J Van Wert; Naomi M Kenner; Skyler S Place; Nour Kibbi
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2007-11

6.  Impact of prevalence and case distribution in lab-based diagnostic imaging studies.

Authors:  Brandon D Gallas; Weijie Chen; Elodia Cole; Robert Ochs; Nicholas Petrick; Etta D Pisano; Berkman Sahiner; Frank W Samuelson; Kyle J Myers
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2019-01-21

Review 7.  Redefining the Practice of Peer Review Through Intelligent Automation Part 1: Creation of a Standardized Methodology and Referenceable Database.

Authors:  Bruce I Reiner
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 8.  [Systematic errors in clinical studies : A comprehensive survey].

Authors:  W A Golder
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.059

9.  Assessing the effect of a true-positive recall case in screening mammography: does perceptual priming alter radiologists' performance?

Authors:  S J Lewis; C R Mello-Thoms; P C Brennan; W Lee; A Tan; M F McEntee; M Evanoff; M Pietrzyk; W M Reed
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-05-12       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  Can non-contrast-enhanced CT (NECT) triage patients suspected of having non-traumatic acute aortic syndromes (AAS)?

Authors:  Paul R Vantine; Jessica K Rosenblum; William G Schaeffer; Kevin T Williams; David W Dockray; Jeffrey M Levsky; Linda B Haramati; Loren H Ketai
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2014-06-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.