ArticleInsights into imaging2011
Image perception and interpretation of abnormalities; can we believe our eyes? Can we do something about it?
Article in Insights into imaging, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Traumatic transection of the uterus: missed, diagnosed, and repaired-a case report and review of literature.Journal of medical case reports · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence in musculoskeletal applications: a primer for radiologists.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Review
- Application of deep learning algorithms in classification and localization of implant cutout for the postoperative hip.Skeletal radiology · 2025Article
- Level of Necrosis in Feline Mammary Tumors: How to Quantify, Why and for What Purpose?Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Australian Dentist's Knowledge and Perceptions of Factors Affecting Radiographic Interpretation.International dental journal · 2024Article
- A Lightweight Browser-Based Tool for Collaborative and Blinded Image Analysis.Journal of imaging · 2024Article
- Machine learning-based diagnosis and risk classification of coronary artery disease using myocardial perfusion imaging SPECT: A radiomics study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- A Novel Tool for Collaborative and Blinded Orthopedic Image Analysis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Stroke-GFCN: ischemic stroke lesion prediction with a fully convolutional graph network.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2023Article
- Pitfalls of Echocardiographic Image Perception: How to Overcome Them?Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Visualizing the Invisible: Invisible Waste in Diagnostic Imaging.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Visual Illusions in Radiology: Untrue Perceptions in Medical Images and Their Implications for Diagnostic Accuracy.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Review
- Detection and Correction of Laterality Errors in Radiology Reports.Journal of digital imaging · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The radiologist's visual impression of images is transmitted, via non-visual means (the report), to the clinician. There are several complex steps from the perception of the images by the radiologist to the understanding of the impression by the clinician. With a process as complex as this, it is no wonder that errors in perception, cognition, interpretation, transmission and understanding are very common. This paper reviews the processes of perception and error generation and possible strategies for minimising them.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.