ArticleAcademic radiology2017
Correlation Between Screening Mammography Interpretive Performance on a Test Set and Performance in Clinical Practice.
Article in Academic radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fatigue and vigilance in medical experts detecting breast cancer.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Mammography self-evaluation online test for screening readers: an Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) initiative.European radiology · 2022Article
- Artificial intelligence in breast cancer screening: primary care provider preferences.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
- Fatigue in radiology: a fertile area for future research.The British journal of radiology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectivesEvidence is inconsistent about whether radiologists' interpretive performance on a screening mammography test set reflects their performance in clinical practice. This study aimed to estimate the correlation between test set and clinical performance and determine if the correlation is influenced by cancer prevalence or lesion difficulty in the test set. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis institutional review board-approved study randomized 83 radiologists from six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries to assess one of four test sets of 109 screening mammograms each; 48 radiologists completed a fifth test set of 110 mammograms 2 years later. Test sets differed in number of cancer cases and difficulty of lesion detection. Test set sensitivity and specificity were estimated using woman-level and breast-level recall with cancer status and expert opinion as gold standards. Clinical performance was estimated using women-level recall with cancer status as the gold standard. Spearman rank correlations between test set and clinical performance with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated.
resultsFor test sets with fewer cancers (N = 15) that were more difficult to detect, correlations were weak to moderate for sensitivity (woman level = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.16, 0.69; breast level = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.03, 0.61) and weak for specificity (0.24, 95% CI = 0.01, 0.45) relative to expert recall. Correlations for test sets with more cancers (N = 30) were close to 0 and not statistically significant.
conclusionsCorrelations between screening performance on a test set and performance in clinical practice are not strong. Test set performance more accurately reflects performance in clinical practice if cancer prevalence is low and lesions are challenging to detect.
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.