ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2023
Variations of image interpretations of radiologists from different populations in mammography and tomosynthesis with different levels of breast density.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography in Women With a Family History of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.Clinical breast cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Optimizing mammography interpretation education: leveraging deep learning for cohort-specific error detection to enhance radiologist training.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to investigate the diagnostic performances of Australian and Shanghai-based Chinese radiologists in reading full-field digital mammogram (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with different levels of breast density. Approach: Eighty-two Australian radiologists interpreted a 60-case FFDM set, and 29 radiologists also reported a 35-case DBT set. Sixty Shanghai radiologists read the same FFDM set, and 32 radiologists read the DBT set. The diagnostic performances of Australian and Shanghai radiologists were assessed using truth data (cancer cases were biopsy proven) and compared overall in specificity, case sensitivity, lesion sensitivity, receiver operating characteristics (ROC) area under the curve, and jack-knife free-response receiver operating characteristics (JAFROC) figure of merit, and they were stratified by case characteristics using the Mann-Whitney U test. The Spearman rank test was used to explore the association between radiologists' performances and their work experience in mammogram interpretation. Results: There were significantly higher performances of Australian radiologists compared with Shanghai radiologists in low breast density for case sensitivity, lesion sensitivity, ROC, and JAFROC in the FFDM set ( Conclusion: There were significant variations in reading performances between Australian and Shanghai radiologists in FFDM and DBT across different levels of breast density, lesion types, and lesion sizes. An effective training initiative tailored to suit local readers is essential to enhancing the diagnostic accuracy of Shanghai radiologists.
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.