To prevent radiologists from overlooking lesions, radiology textbooks recommend “systematic viewing,” a technique whereby anatomical areas are inspected in a fixed order. This would ensure complete inspection (full coverage) of the image and, in turn, improve diagnostic performance. To test this assumption, two experiments were performed. Both experiments investigated the relationship between systematic viewing, coverage, and diagnostic performance. Additionally, the first investigated whether systematic viewing increases with expertise; the second investigated whether novices benefit from full-coverage or systematic viewing training. In Experiment 1, 11 students, ten residents, and nine radiologists inspected five chest radiographs. Experiment 2 had 75 students undergo a training in either systematic, full-coverage (without being systematic) or non-systematic viewing. Eye movements and diagnostic performance were measured throughout both experiments. In Experiment 1, no significant correlations were found between systematic viewing and coverage, r = −.10, p = .62, and coverage and performance, r = −.06, p = .74. Experts were significantly more systematic than students F2,25 = 4.35, p = .02. In Experiment 2, significant correlations were found between systematic viewing and coverage, r = −.35, p < .01, but not between coverage and performance, r = .13, p = .31. Participants in the full-coverage training performed worse compared with both other groups, which did not differ between them, F2,71 = 3.95, p = .02. In conclusion, the data question the assumption that systematic viewing leads to increased coverage, and, consequently, to improved performance. Experts inspected cases more systematically, but students did not benefit from systematic viewing training.

Previous ipsilateral PCNL increases the risk of fever after POD1. Paraplegic patients are at risk for developing SIRS after PCNL.

No abstract

Models of expertise differences in radiology often do not take into account visual differences between diseases. This study investigates the bottom-up effects of three types of images on viewing patterns of students, residents and radiologists: focal diseases (localized abnormality), diffuse diseases (distributed abnormality) and images showing no abnormalities (normal). Participants inspected conventional chest radiographs while their eye movements were recorded. Regardless of expertise, in focal diseases, participants fixated relatively long at specific locations, whereas in diffuse diseases, fixations were more dispersed and shorter. Moreover, for students, dispersion of fixations was higher on diffuse compared with normal images, whereas for residents and radiologists, dispersion was highest on normal images. Despite this difference, students showed relatively high performance on normal images but low performance on focal and diffuse images. Viewing patterns were strongly influenced by bottom-up stimulus effects. Although viewing behavior of students was similar to that of radiologists, they lack knowledge that helps them diagnose the disease correctly.

No abstract

In addition to age, we established 9 significant determinants for lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia. However, not all risk factors for lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia are accounted for since we can conclude that 1 of 3 men without these risk factors will still be diagnosed with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia between ages 50 and 80 years.

a b s t r a c tComparison learning is a promising approach for learning complex real-life visual tasks. When medical students study radiological appearances of diseases, comparison of images showing diseases with images showing no abnormalities could help them learn to discriminate relevant, disease-related information. Medical students studied 12 diseases on chest x-ray images. They were randomly assigned to a group (n ¼ 31) that compared radiographs of diseases with normal images and a group (n ¼ 30) that only studied radiographs of diseases. On a visual diagnosis test, students who compared with normal images during study were better able to diagnose focal diseases (i.e., lesions at one location) than students who could not compare, but for the diagnosis of diffuse diseases (i.e., involving both lungs) there was no significant difference between groups. Results show that comparison with normal images made it easier to discriminate relevant information for focal diseases.

No abstract