ReviewFrontiers in neuroscience2021
Visual Illusions in Radiology: Untrue Perceptions in Medical Images and Their Implications for Diagnostic Accuracy.
Review in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2021. 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.
- Microsaccade Dynamics Enhance Nodule Detection and Discriminate Reader Expertise Levels During Chest Radiography.Research square · 2026Article
- Social Media and Telemedicine in Ophthalmology: Misinformation, Patient Perception, and the Evolving Digital Patient.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Measurements of equine foot parameters show limited agreement between radiographs and low-field magnetic resonance imaging.Equine veterinary journal · 2025Article
- U-Net enhanced real-time LED-based photoacoustic imaging.Journal of biophotonics · 2024Article
- Mandating Limits on Workload, Duty, and Speed in Radiology.Radiology · 2022Review
- No common factor for illusory percepts, but a link between pareidolia and delusion tendency: A test of predictive coding theory.Frontiers in psychology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Errors in radiologic interpretation are largely the result of failures of perception. This remains true despite the increasing use of computer-aided detection and diagnosis. We surveyed the literature on visual illusions during the viewing of radiologic images. Misperception of anatomical structures is a potential cause of error that can lead to patient harm if disease is seen when none is present. However, visual illusions can also help enhance the ability of radiologists to detect and characterize abnormalities. Indeed, radiologists have learned to exploit certain perceptual biases in diagnostic findings and as training tools. We propose that further detailed study of radiologic illusions would help clarify the mechanisms underlying radiologic performance and provide additional heuristics to improve radiologist training and reduce medical error.
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.