ArticleScientific reports2025
Improving lesion detection skills in medical imaging education through enhanced peripheral visual perception.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate medical image diagnosis is essential in clinical practice and places high demands on the diagnostic skills of imaging professionals. However, a significant shortage of radiologists highlights the gap between supply and demand, leading to the importance of education. Traditional education has largely neglected the development of visual perception skills, which play a critical role in lesion detection. This study aims to investigate visual training methods that can effectively enhance learners' perceptual abilities in medical image interpretation through a pre-post experiment. In the experiment, the participants of intervention groups underwent intensive training targeting uncovered visual areas under central or peripheral vision occlusion conditions. The result showed that peripheral vision training significantly improved participants' diagnostic mean accuracy (from 59.5 to 68.0%, p < 0.001), mean sensitivity (from 69.0 to 79.5%, p < 0.001), mean positive predictive value (from 65.6 to 82.9%, p < 0.001), and reduced mean task time (from 1163.4s to 877.3s, p < 0.001). However, neither peripheral nor central vision training significantly improved specificity and negative predictive value, which were metrics of negative diagnostic ability. Consequently, enhancing peripheral vision perception helped to reduce missed diagnoses, but with limited impact on reducing misdiagnosis. The peripheral training enhanced the effectiveness of medical image diagnosis education to provide competent professionals in the field.
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.