Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37114188›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2023

Visual adaptation to medical images: a comparison of digital mammography and tomosynthesis.

Mohana Kuppuswamy Parthasarathy, Margarita L Zuley, Andriy I Bandos, Craig K Abbey, Michael A Webster

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Mohana Kuppuswamy ParthasarathyUniversity of Nevada, Reno, Department of Psychology, Reno, Nevada, United States.
Margarita L ZuleyUniversity of Pittsburgh, Department of Radiology, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States.
Andriy I BandosUniversity of Pittsburgh, School of Public health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5629-1415
Craig K AbbeyUniversity of California, Santa Barbara, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Santa Barbara, California, United States.
Michael A WebsterUniversity of Nevada, Reno, Department of Psychology, Reno, Nevada, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8262-7525

Funding

Sequential Reading Effects in Digital Breast TomosynthesisR01CA237827 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI ABBEY, CRAIG KENDALL, BANDOS, ANDRIY · 2020 to 2023
$1.6M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA237827
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Radiologists and other image readers spend prolonged periods inspecting medical images. The visual system can rapidly adapt or adjust sensitivity to the images that an observer is currently viewing, and previous studies have demonstrated that this can lead to pronounced changes in the perception of mammogram images. We compared these adaptation effects for images from different imaging modalities to explore both general and modality-specific consequences of adaptation in medical image perception. Approach: We measured perceptual changes induced by adaptation to images acquired by digital mammography (DM) or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), which have both similar and distinct textural properties. Participants (nonradiologists) adapted to images from the same patient acquired from each modality or for different patients with American College of Radiology-Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification of dense or fatty tissue. The participants then judged the appearance of composite images formed by blending the two adapting images (i.e., DM versus DBT or dense versus fatty in each modality). Results: Adaptation to either modality produced similar significant shifts in the perception of dense and fatty textures, reducing the salience of the adapted component in the test images. In side-by-side judgments, a modality-specific adaptation effect was not observed. However, when the images were directly fixated during adaptation and testing, so that the textural differences between the modalities were more visible, significantly different changes in the sensitivity to the noise in the images were observed. Conclusions: These results confirm that observers can readily adapt to the visual properties or spatial textures of medical images in ways that can bias their perception of the images, and that adaptation can also be selective for the distinctive visual features of images acquired by different modalities.

Indexed as

adaptationmammographynoise perceptiontexture perceptiontomosynthesis

Identifiers

PMID37114188
PMCPMC10128168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.