Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36417030›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2022

Spotting lesions in thorax X-rays at a glance: holistic processing in radiology.

Merim Bilalić, Thomas Grottenthaler, Thomas Nägele, Tobias Lindig

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Merim BilalićDepartment of Psychology, University of Northumbria at Newcastle, Ellison Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8ST, UK. merim.bilalic@northumbria.ac.uk.
Thomas GrottenthalerDepartment of Neuroradiology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Thomas NägeleDepartment of Neuroradiology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Tobias LindigDepartment of Neuroradiology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiologists often need only a glance to grasp the essence of complex medical images. Here, we use paradigms and manipulations from perceptual learning and expertise fields to elicit mechanisms and limits of holistic processing in radiological expertise. In the first experiment, radiologists were significantly better at categorizing thorax X-rays when they were presented for 200 ms in an upright orientation than when they were presented upside-down. Medical students, in contrast, were guessing in both situations. When the presentation time was increased to 500 ms, allowing for a couple more glances, the radiologists improved their performance on the upright stimuli, but remained at the same level on the inverted presentation. The second experiment circumvented the holistic processing by immediately cueing a tissue within the X-rays, which may or may not contain a nodule. Radiologists were again better than medical students at recognizing whether the cued tissue was a nodule, but this time neither the inverted presentation nor additional time affected their performance. Our study demonstrates that holistic processing is most likely a continuous recurring process which is just as susceptible to the inversion effect as in other expertise domains. More importantly, our study also indicates that holistic-like processing readily occurs in complex stimuli (e.g., whole thorax X-rays) but is more difficult to find in uniform single parts of such stimuli (e.g., nodules).

Indexed as

RadiologistsRadiologyHumansRadiographyThoraxX-RaysExpertiseGlobal impressionHolistic processingInversion effectRadiology

Identifiers

PMID36417030
PMCPMC9684389

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.