ArticleJournal of digital imaging2019
Can a Machine Learn from Radiologists' Visual Search Behaviour and Their Interpretation of Mammograms-a Deep-Learning Study.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Variation within and between digital pathology and light microscopy for the diagnosis of histopathology slides: blinded crossover comparison study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Article
- The Use of Machine Learning in Eye Tracking Studies in Medical Imaging: A Review.IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics · 2024Review
- Reducing the number of unnecessary biopsies for mammographic BI-RADS 4 lesions through a deep transfer learning method.BMC medical imaging · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Visual search behaviour and the interpretation of mammograms have been studied for errors in breast cancer detection. We aim to ascertain whether machine-learning models can learn about radiologists' attentional level and the interpretation of mammograms. We seek to determine whether these models are practical and feasible for use in training and teaching programmes. Eight radiologists of varying experience levels in reading mammograms reviewed 120 two-view digital mammography cases (59 cancers). Their search behaviour and decisions were captured using a head-mounted eye-tracking device and software allowing them to record their decisions. This information from radiologists was used to build an ensembled machine-learning model using top-down hierarchical deep convolution neural network. Separately, a model to determine type of missed cancer (search, perception or decision-making) was also built. Analysis and comparison of variants of these models using different convolution networks with and without transfer learning were also performed. Our ensembled deep-learning network architecture can be trained to learn about radiologists' attentional level and decisions. High accuracy (95%, p value ≅ 0 [better than dumb/random model]) and high agreement between true and predicted values (kappa = 0.83) in such modelling can be achieved. Transfer learning techniques improve by < 10% with the performance of this model. We also show that spatial convolution neural networks are insufficient in determining the type of missed cancers. Ensembled hierarchical deep convolution machine-learning models are plausible in modelling radiologists' attentional level and their interpretation of mammograms. However, deep convolution networks fail to characterise the type of false-negative decisions.
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.