ArticleEuropean radiology2015
The effect of computer-aided detection markers on visual search and reader performance during concurrent reading of CT colonography.
Article in European radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cue relevance drives early quitting in visual search.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- Automated detection and segmentation of sclerotic spinal lesions on body CTs using a deep convolutional neural network.Skeletal radiology · 2022Article
- What do we know about volumetric medical image interpretation?: a review of the basic science and medical image perception literatures.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2019Review
- Increasing Navigation Speed at Endoluminal CT Colonography Reduces Colonic Visualization and Polyp Identification.Radiology · 2017Article
- Do prevalence expectations affect patterns of visual search and decision-making in interpreting CT colonography endoluminal videos?The British journal of radiology · 2016Article
- Review of prospects and challenges of eye tracking in volumetric imaging.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to identify the effect of computer-aided detection (CAD) on visual search and performance in CT Colonography (CTC) of inexperienced and experienced readers.
methodsFifteen endoluminal CTC examinations were recorded, each with one polyp, and two videos were generated, one with and one without a CAD mark. Forty-two readers (17 experienced, 25 inexperienced) interpreted the videos during infrared visual search recording. CAD markers and polyps were treated as regions of interest in data processing. This multi-reader, multi-case study was analysed using multilevel modelling.
resultsCAD drew readers' attention to polyps faster, accelerating identification times: median 'time to first pursuit' was 0.48 s (IQR 0.27 to 0.87 s) with CAD, versus 0.58 s (IQR 0.35 to 1.06 s) without. For inexperienced readers, CAD also held visual attention for longer. All visual search metrics used to assess visual gaze behaviour demonstrated statistically significant differences when "with" and "without" CAD were compared. A significant increase in the number of correct polyp identifications across all readers was seen with CAD (74 % without CAD, 87 % with CAD; p < 0.001).
conclusionsCAD significantly alters visual search and polyp identification in readers viewing three-dimensional endoluminal CTC. For polyp and CAD marker pursuit times, CAD generally exerted a larger effect on inexperienced readers. KEY POINTS: • Visual gaze is attracted by computer-assisted detection (CAD) marks on polyps • Inexperienced readers' gaze is affected more by CAD than experienced readers. • CAD marks could mean that the unannotated endoluminal surface is relatively neglected. • Correct polyp identification is increased significantly by CAD.
Indexed as
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.