Is confidence of mammographic assessment a good predictor of accuracy?

Department of Family Medicine, University of Vermont, 1 S Prospect St, Burlington, VT 05401-3444, USA.
American Journal of Roentgenology (Impact Factor: 2.74). 07/2012; 199(1):W134-41. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.11.7701
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Interpretive accuracy varies among radiologists, especially in mammography. This study examines the relationship between radiologists' confidence in their assessments and their accuracy in interpreting mammograms.
In this study, 119 community radiologists interpreted 109 expert-defined screening mammography examinations in test sets and rated their confidence in their assessment for each case. They also provided a global assessment of their ability to interpret mammograms. Positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were modeled as functions of self-rated confidence on each examination using log-linear regression estimated with generalized estimating equations. Reference measures were cancer status and expert-defined need for recall. Effect modification by weekly mammography volume was examined.
Radiologists who self-reported higher global interpretive ability tended to interpret more mammograms per week (p = 0.08), were more likely to specialize (p = 0.02) and to have completed a fellowship in breast or women's imaging (p = 0.05), and had a higher PPV for cancer detection (p = 0.01). Examinations for which low-volume radiologists were "very confident" had a PPV of 2.93 times (95% CI, 2.01-4.27) higher than examinations they rated with neutral confidence. Trends of increasing NPVs with increasing confidence were significant for low-volume radiologists relative to noncancers (p = 0.01) and expert nonrecalls (p < 0.001). A trend of significantly increasing NPVs existed for high-volume radiologists relative to expert nonrecall (p = 0.02) but not relative to noncancer status (p = 0.32).
Confidence in mammography assessments was associated with better accuracy, especially for low-volume readers. Asking for a second opinion when confidence in an assessment is low may increase accuracy.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of international teleradiology attending radiologist coverage (ITARC) of emergency examinations on radiology residents' perceptions of night call. A survey was administered at 2 different radiology residency programs that have attending radiologists who cover the night shift via teleradiology from Israel 5 nights per week. The survey consisted of 12 questions concerning residents' education and anxiety during on-call shifts and the effects of ITARC on these aspects of residency training. The questions were answered on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 3 being neutral. The radiology residents felt that ITARC improved the on-call learning experience (score = 3.7; 1 = much worse, 5 = much improved). The residents felt neutral about the statements "Review of cases with the attending radiologist over the telephone is comparable educationally to having the attending radiologist in person at the workstation" (score = 3.0) and "Having an attending radiologist easily available diminishes the need for me to commit to a diagnosis on my own and is therefore detrimental to my education" (score = 2.9; 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The residents' stress levels on call were high without ITARC (score = 1.8; 1 = very high, 5 = very low) and moderate with ITARC (score = 2.7). The residents' anxiety levels before a night on call were moderate without ITARC (score = 2.9; 1 = very high, 5 = very low) and low with ITARC (score = 3.7). Radiology residents felt that ITARC improved their educational experience. International teleradiology attending radiologist coverage also decreased radiology residents' stress and anxiety related to on-call shifts.
    Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR 12/2006; 3(11):872-8.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Our objective was to compare interpretation speeds for digital and film-screen screening mammograms to test whether other variables might affect interpretation times and thus contribute to the apparent difference in interpretation speed between digital mammograms and film-screen mammograms, and to test whether the use of digital rather than film comparison studies might result in significant time savings. Four readers were timed in the course of actual clinical interpretation of digital mammograms and film-screen mammograms. Interpretation times were compared for subgroups of studies based on the interpretation of the study by BI-RADS code, the number of images, the presence or absence of comparison studies and the type of comparison study, and whether the radiologist personally selected and hung additional films; the same comparisons were made among individual readers. For all four readers, mean interpretation times were longer for digital mammograms than for film-screen mammograms, with differences ranging from 76 to 202 seconds. The difference in interpretation speed between digital and film-screen mammograms was independent of other variables. Digital mammogram interpretation times were significantly longer than film-screen mammogram interpretation times regardless of whether the digital mammograms were matched with film or digital comparison studies. In screening mammography interpretation, digital mammograms take longer to read than film-screen mammograms, independent of other variables. Exclusive use of digital comparison studies may not cause interpretation times to drop enough to approach the interpretation time required for film-screen mammograms.
    American Journal of Roentgenology 02/2009; 192(1):216-20. · 2.74 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To test the hypothesis that rapid and accurate performance of the proficient observer in mammogram interpretation involves a shift in the mechanism of image perception from a relatively slow search-to-find mode to a relatively fast holistic mode. This HIPAA-compliant study had institutional review board approval, and participant informed consent was obtained; patient informed consent was not required. The eye positions of three full-time mammographers, one attending radiologist, two mammography fellows, and three radiology residents were recorded during the interpretation of 20 normal and 20 subtly abnormal mammograms. The search time required to first locate a cancer, as well as the initial eye scan path, was determined and compared with diagnostic performance as measured with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The median time for all observers to fixate a cancer, regardless of the decision outcome, was 1.13 seconds, with a range of 0.68 second to 3.06 seconds. Even though most of the lesions were fixated, recognition of them as cancerous ranged from 85% (17 of 20) to 10% (two of 20), with corresponding areas under the ROC curve of 0.87-0.40. The ROC index of detectability, d(a), was linearly related to the time to first fixate a cancer with a correlation (r(2)) of 0.81. The rapid initial fixation of a true abnormality is evidence for a global perceptual process capable of analyzing the visual input of the entire retinal image and pinpointing the spatial location of an abnormality. It appears to be more highly developed in the most proficient observers, replacing the less efficient initial search-to-find strategies.
    Radiology 03/2007; 242(2):396-402. · 6.21 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 23, 2014