ArticleProceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering2026
Characteristics of trainee interpretation time during simulated screening mammography.
Article in Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Efficiency in screening mammogram interpretation is complex and involves the time to view the images and report the findings. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the factors impacting the interpretation time of screening mammograms by radiology residents. Materials and methods: In this IRB-approved prospective study, radiology residents performed screening mammography simulations during their breast imaging rotations. The research simulation space replicated the clinical practice area without the interruptions. Residents interpreted 50 enriched screening mammograms and completed eye tracking on the first ten cases (six digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and four full-field digital mammogram (FFDM) cases). The amount of time to interpret (visual inspection) and report the 10 eye-tracking cases (electronic reporting) was evaluated and compared based on the breast imaging rotation (first, second, or third) and postgraduate year level (PGY). We present the time for each of the 10 eye tracking cases that were subdivided into visual inspection time of the mammogram and reporting time. Comparisons were performed with t-test and significance at p≤0.05. Results: 25 residents performed the simulation with eye tracking: 14 residents during their first rotation, 7 in their second, and 4 in their third. There were 5 PGY2, 8 PGY3, 7 PGY4 and 5 PGY5 residents.The average overall interpretation time for 50 cases was 4.12 hours (SD=1.26), and 1.35 hours for the 10 eye tracking cases. For the eye-tracking cases, the average visual inspection time per case was 2.13 minutes with a reporting time of 3.08 minutes for an overall interpretation time of 5.21 minutes per case.For eye-tracking cases, the overall interpretation time significantly decreased from those completing their first (6.0 min) to third (4.2 min) breast rotation (p<0.001) and from PGY2 (6.6 min) to PGY5 (4.8 min) (p=0.004). The visual inspection time significantly decreased from PGY2 (2.6 min) compared to PGY5 (1.8 min) (p=0.001) level and from the first to the third rotation (p=0.021).No significant differences were observed for overall interpretation time between DBT (5.29 min) and FFDM (5.69 min) (p=0.319) or visual inspection time per case for DBT (2.20 min) and FFDM (2.03 min) (p=0.335). Conclusion: Interpretation time for screening mammography decreases with increasing PGY level and the number of breast imaging rotations, which is likely due to experience and confidence with the types of exams. No difference was noted between DBT and FFDM average times.
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.