ArticleProceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering2018
Evaluation of Search Strategies for Microcalcifications and Masses in 3D Images.
Article in Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Greater benefits of deep learning-based computer-aided detection systems for finding small signals in 3D volumetric medical images.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2024Article
- A 2D Synthesized Image Improves the 3D Search for Foveated Visual Systems.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 2023Article
- Visual adaptation to medical images: a comparison of digital mammography and tomosynthesis.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2023Article
- Computational reader design and statistical performance evaluation of anJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2020Article
- Search of low-contrast liver lesions in abdominal CT: the importance of scrolling behavior.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2020Article
- Interactions of lesion detectability and size across single-slice DBT and 3D DBT.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2018Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Medical imaging is quickly evolving towards 3D image modalities such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). These 3D image modalities add volumetric information but further increase the need for radiologists to search through the image data set. Although much is known about search strategies in 2D images less is known about the functional consequences of different 3D search strategies. We instructed readers to use two different search strategies: drillers had their eye movements restricted to a few regions while they quickly scrolled through the image stack, scanners explored through eye movements the 2D slices. We used real-time eye position monitoring to ensure observers followed the drilling or the scanning strategy while approximately preserving the percentage of the volumetric data covered by the useful field of view. We investigated search for two signals: a simulated microcalcification and a larger simulated mass. Results show an interaction between the search strategy and lesion type. In particular, scanning provided significantly better detectability for microcalcifications at the cost of 5 times more time to search while there was little change in the detectability for the larger simulated masses. Analyses of eye movements support the hypothesis that the effectiveness of a search strategy in 3D imaging arises from the interaction of the fixational sampling of visual information and the signals' visibility in the visual periphery.
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.