ArticleAcademic radiology2024
Targeted Training Reduces Search Errors but Not Classification Errors for Hepatic Metastasis Detection at Contrast-Enhanced CT.
Article in Academic radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the performance of radiologists assisted by AI in detecting colorectal liver metastases on contrast-enhanced CT.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026Article
- Evaluation of colorectal liver metastases using virtual monoenergetic images obtained from dual-layer spectral computed tomography.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- Peripheral liver metastases are more frequently missed than central metastases in contrast-enhanced CT: insights from a 25-reader performance study.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- 3D printed phantom with 12 000 submillimeter lesions to improve efficiency in CT detectability assessment.Medical physics · 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
14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectivesMethods are needed to improve the detection of hepatic metastases. Errors occur in both lesion detection (search) and decisions of benign versus malignant (classification). Our purpose was to evaluate a training program to reduce search errors and classification errors in the detection of hepatic metastases in contrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND
methodsAfter Institutional Review Board approval, we conducted a single-group prospective pretest-posttest study. Pretest and posttest were identical and consisted of interpreting 40 contrast-enhanced abdominal CT exams containing 91 liver metastases under eye tracking. Between pretest and posttest, readers completed search training with eye-tracker feedback and coaching to increase interpretation time, use liver windows, and use coronal reformations. They also completed classification training with part-task practice, rating lesions as benign or malignant. The primary outcome was metastases missed due to search errors (<2 seconds gaze under eye tracker) and classification errors (>2 seconds). Jackknife free-response receiver operator characteristic (JAFROC) analysis was also conducted.
resultsA total of 31 radiologist readers (8 abdominal subspecialists, 8 nonabdominal subspecialists, 15 senior residents/fellows) participated. Search errors were reduced (pretest 11%, posttest 8%, difference 3% [95% confidence interval, 0.3%-5.1%], P = .01), but there was no difference in classification errors (difference 0%, P = .97) or in JAFROC figure of merit (difference -0.01, P = .36). In subgroup analysis, abdominal subspecialists demonstrated no evidence of change.
conclusionTargeted training reduced search errors but not classification errors for the detection of hepatic metastases at contrast-enhanced abdominal CT. Improvements were not seen in all subgroups.
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.