ArticlePloS one2023
Reliability of radiologists' first impression when interpreting a screening mammogram.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Machine Learning Model Based on Global Mammographic Radiomic Features Can Predict Which Normal Mammographic Cases Radiology Trainees Find Most Difficult.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Three-Blind Validation Strategy of Deep Learning Models for Image Segmentation.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Computer-extracted global radiomic features can predict the radiologists' first impression about the abnormality of a screening mammogram.The British journal of radiology · 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
11 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Previous studies showed that radiologists can detect the gist of an abnormality in a mammogram based on a half-second image presentation through global processing of screening mammograms. This study investigated the intra- and inter-observer reliability of the radiologists' initial impressions about the abnormality (or "gist signal"). It also examined if a subset of radiologists produced more reliable and accurate gist signals. Thirty-nine radiologists provided their initial impressions on two separate occasions, viewing each mammogram for half a second each time. The intra-class correlation (ICC) values showed poor to moderate intra-reader reliability. Only 13 radiologists had an ICC of 0.6 or above, which is considered the minimum standard for reliability, and only three radiologists had an ICC exceeding 0.7. The median value for the weighted Cohen's Kappa was 0.478 (interquartile range = 0.419-0.555). The Mann-Whitney U-test showed that the "Gist Experts", defined as those who outperformed others, had significantly higher ICC values (p = 0.002) and weighted Cohen's Kappa scores (p = 0.026). However, even for these experts, the intra-radiologist agreements were not strong, as an ICC of at least 0.75 indicates good reliability and the signal from none of the readers reached this level of reliability as determined by ICC values. The inter-reader reliability of the gist signal was poor, with an ICC score of 0.31 (CI = 0.26-0.37). The Fleiss Kappa score of 0.106 (CI = 0.105-0.106), indicating only slight inter-reader agreement, confirms the findings from the ICC analysis. The intra- and inter-reader reliability analysis showed that the radiologists' initial impressions are not reliable signals. In particular, the absence of an abnormal gist does not reliably signal a normal case, so radiologists should keep searching. This highlights the importance of "discovery scanning," or coarse screening to detect potential targets before ending the visual search.
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.