Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31286283›Full record

ReviewCognitive research: principles and implications2019

What do we know about volumetric medical image interpretation?: a review of the basic science and medical image perception literatures.

Lauren H Williams, Trafton Drew

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Controllable Medical Image Generation via GAN.Journal of perceptual imaging · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Lauren H WilliamsUniversity of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. lauren.h.williams@utah.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0680-2464
Trafton DrewUniversity of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

Funding

Reader Accuracy in Pathology Interpretation and Diagnosis: Perception and Cognition (RAPID-PC)R01CA225585 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI ELMORE, JOANN G, WEAVER, DONALD LEE · 2018 to 2022
$3.2M
NCI NIH HHS 1R01CA225585-01NCI NIH HHS R01 CA225585
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interpretation of volumetric medical images represents a rapidly growing proportion of the workload in radiology. However, relatively little is known about the strategies that best guide search behavior when looking for abnormalities in volumetric images. Although there is extensive literature on two-dimensional medical image perception, it is an open question whether the conclusions drawn from these images can be generalized to volumetric images. Importantly, volumetric images have distinct characteristics (e.g., scrolling through depth, smooth-pursuit eye-movements, motion onset cues, etc.) that should be considered in future research. In this manuscript, we will review the literature on medical image perception and discuss relevant findings from basic science that can be used to generate predictions about expertise in volumetric image interpretation. By better understanding search through volumetric images, we may be able to identify common sources of error, characterize the optimal strategies for searching through depth, or develop new training and assessment techniques for radiology residents.

Indexed as

ExpertiseMedical image perceptionRadiologyVisual searchVolumetric medical images

Identifiers

PMID31286283
PMCPMC6614227

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.