Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29795777›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2018

Cognitive processing differences of experts and novices when correlating anatomy and cross-sectional imaging.

Lonie R Salkowski, Rosemary Russ

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Lonie R SalkowskiUniversity of Wisconsin, School of Medicine and Public Health, Department of Radiology, Madison, Wisconsin, United States.
Rosemary RussUniversity of Wisconsin, School of Education, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Madison, Wisconsin, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

cognitionexpert–novicehuman anatomymedical imagingsimulation

Identifiers

PMID29795777
PMCPMC5958290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.