ArticleEuropean radiology2021
Does it matter for the radiologists' performance whether they read short or long batches in organized mammographic screening?
Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence for breast cancer prevention: the vision ahead.European radiology · 2026Review
- AI Applications to Breast MRI: Today and Tomorrow.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2024Review
- Changes in Reader Performance During Sequential Reading of Breast Cancer Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Examinations.Radiology · 2024Observational
- Organizational impact of systemic implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis as a primary test for breast cancer screening in Italy.La Radiologia medica · 2024Article
- Discordant and false-negative interpretations at digital breast tomosynthesis in the prospective Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (OTST) using independent double reading.European radiology · 2024Article
- Optimising the diagnostic accuracy of First post-contrAst SubtracTed breast MRI (FAST MRI) through interpretation-training: a multicentre e-learning study, mapping the learning curve of NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) mammogram readers using an enriched dataset.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2024Article
- Fatigue and vigilance in medical experts detecting breast cancer.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Designing for sensory adaptation: what you see depends on what you've been looking at - Recommendations, guidelines and standards should reflect this.Policy insights from the behavioral and brain sciences · 2024Article
- Possible strategies for use of artificial intelligence in screen-reading of mammograms, based on retrospective data from 122,969 screening examinations.European radiology · 2022Article
- Using deep learning to safely exclude lesions with only ultrafast breast MRI to shorten acquisition and reading time.European radiology · 2022Article
- Variations in breast cancer detection rates during mammogram-reading sessions: does experience have an impact?The British journal of radiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze the association between radiologists' performance and image position within a batch in screen reading of mammograms in Norway.
methodWe described true and false positives and true and false negatives by groups of image positions and batch sizes for 2,937,312 screen readings performed from 2012 to 2018. Mixed-effects models were used to obtain adjusted proportions of true and false positive, true and false negative, sensitivity, and specificity for different image positions. We adjusted for time of day and weekday and included the individual variation between the radiologists as random effects. Time spent reading was included in an additional model to explore a possible mediation effect.
resultTrue and false positives were negatively associated with image position within the batch, while the rates of true and false negatives were positively associated. In the adjusted analyses, the rate of true positives was 4.0 per 1000 (95% CI: 3.8-4.2) readings for image position 10 and 3.9 (95% CI: 3.7-4.1) for image position 60. The rate of true negatives was 94.4% (95% CI: 94.0-94.8) for image position 10 and 94.8% (95% CI: 94.4-95.2) for image position 60. Per 1000 readings, the rate of false negative was 0.60 (95% CI: 0.53-0.67) for image position 10 and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.55-0.69) for image position 60.
conclusionThere was a decrease in the radiologists' sensitivity throughout the batch, and although this effect was small, our results may be clinically relevant at a population level or when multiplying the differences with the number of screen readings for the individual radiologists. KEY POINTS: • True and false positive reading scores were negatively associated with image position within a batch. • A decreasing trend of positive scores indicated a beneficial effect of a certain number of screen readings within a batch. • False negative scores increased throughout the batch but the association was not statistically significant.
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.