ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2017
Individual differences in perceptual abilities in medical imaging: the Vanderbilt Chest Radiograph Test.
Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Object recognition ability predicts episodic location memory, enhanced by meaningfulness.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Use of a sperm morphology assessment standardisation training tool improves the accuracy of novice sperm morphologists.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Advanced undergraduate medical students' perceptions of basic medical competences and specific competences for different medical specialties - a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Idiosyncratic biases in the perception of medical images.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Controllable Medical Image Generation via Generative Adversarial Networks.IS&T International Symposium on Electronic Imaging · 2021Article
- Perceptual learning in the identification of lung cancer in chest radiographs.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2020Article
- A comparison of visual identification of dental radiographic and nonradiographic images using eye tracking technology.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2020Article
- A review of eye tracking for understanding and improving diagnostic interpretation.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2019Article
- Analysis of Perceptual Expertise in Radiology - Current Knowledge and a New Perspective.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Radiologists make many important decisions when detecting nodules on chest radiographs. While training can result in high levels of performance of this task, there could be individual differences in relevant perceptual abilities that are present pre-training. A pre-requisite to address this question is a valid and reliable measure of such abilities. The present work introduces a new measure, the Vanderbilt Chest Radiograph Test (VCRT), which aims to quantify individual differences in perceptual abilities for radiograph-related decision-making in novices. We validate the relevance of the test to diagnostic imaging by verifying radiologists' superior performance on the test compared to novices'. The final VCRT version produces scores with acceptable internal consistency. Then, we investigate how the VCRT can be used in future research by evaluating how the test relates to extant measures of face and object recognition ability. We find that the VCRT shares a small but significant portion of its variance with a measure of novel object recognition, suggesting that some aspect of VCRT performance is driven by a domain-general visual ability.
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.