ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2018
Cognitive processing differences of experts and novices when correlating anatomy and cross-sectional imaging.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Use of large language models for providing automated feedback in medical imaging education: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Deep-Learning Algorithm Diagnostic Support for Usual Interstitial Pneumonia Pattern Recognition in Fibrotic Interstitial Lung Disease.Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2026Article
- Using design thinking to create and implement a 3D digital library of anatomical specimens.Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Article
- Exploring medical students' metacognitive and regulatory dimensions of diagnostic problem solving.Medical education online · 2023Article
- Clinical reasoning in emergency medical technicians and its compliance with the illness script theory: A pilot study.Journal of education and health promotion · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ability to correlate anatomical knowledge and medical imaging is crucial to radiology and as such, should be a critical component of medical education. However, we are hindered in our ability to teach this skill because we know very little about what expert practice looks like, and even less about novices' understanding. Using a unique simulation tool, this research conducted cognitive clinical interviews with experts and novices to explore differences in how they engage in this correlation and the underlying cognitive processes involved in doing so. This research supported what has been known in the literature, that experts are significantly faster at making decisions on medical imaging than novices. It also offers insight into the spatial ability and reasoning that is involved in the correlation of anatomy to medical imaging. There are differences in the cognitive processing of experts and novices with respect to meaningful patterns, organized content knowledge, and the flexibility of retrieval. Presented are some novice-expert similarities and differences in image processing. This study investigated extremes, opening an opportunity to investigate the sequential knowledge acquisition from student to resident to expert, and where educators can help intervene in this learning process.
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.