Time of day and mammographic reader performance in a population-based breast cancer screening programme

Backmann, Heinrich A; Larsen, Marthe; Danielsen, Anders Skyrud; Hofvind, Solveig

doi:10.1177/0969141320953206

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, screen reading hundreds of mammograms might cause fatigue, and it is expected that a decrement in vigilance will affect the performance. A recent study demonstrated a decrease in sensitivity and increase in specificity for breast radiologists throughout the day [7]. Based on these findings, we expect a decline in sensitivity throughout a batch of screen readings.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 54%

“…Menopausal status, use of hormonal treatment, and mammographic density are examples of risk factors [2][3][4][5], while screening interval, age range of the target population, and availability to prior mammograms are examples of organizational factors [6]. The radiologists' experience, time of day, reading volume each day, time spent reading, number of reading sequences (batches), and size of the batches are examples of factors expected to be of influence for the radiologists' performance [6][7][8][9][10][11]. However, the evidence concerning the relative importance of these factors is sparse and the studies are often performed in a test or educational setting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does it matter for the radiologists’ performance whether they read short or long batches in organized mammographic screening?

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To analyze the association between radiologists’ performance and image position within a batch in screen reading of mammograms in Norway. Method We described true and false positives and true and false negatives by groups of image positions and batch sizes for 2,937,312 screen readings performed from 2012 to 2018. Mixed-effects models were used to obtain adjusted proportions of true and false positive, true and false negative, sensitivity, and specificity for different image positions. We adjusted for time of day and weekday and included the individual variation between the radiologists as random effects. Time spent reading was included in an additional model to explore a possible mediation effect. Result True and false positives were negatively associated with image position within the batch, while the rates of true and false negatives were positively associated. In the adjusted analyses, the rate of true positives was 4.0 per 1000 (95% CI: 3.8–4.2) readings for image position 10 and 3.9 (95% CI: 3.7–4.1) for image position 60. The rate of true negatives was 94.4% (95% CI: 94.0–94.8) for image position 10 and 94.8% (95% CI: 94.4–95.2) for image position 60. Per 1000 readings, the rate of false negative was 0.60 (95% CI: 0.53–0.67) for image position 10 and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.55–0.69) for image position 60. Conclusion There was a decrease in the radiologists’ sensitivity throughout the batch, and although this effect was small, our results may be clinically relevant at a population level or when multiplying the differences with the number of screen readings for the individual radiologists. Key Points • True and false positive reading scores were negatively associated with image position within a batch. • A decreasing trend of positive scores indicated a beneficial effect of a certain number of screen readings within a batch. • False negative scores increased throughout the batch but the association was not statistically significant.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does it matter for the radiologists’ performance whether they read short or long batches in organized mammographic screening?

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a study from BreastScreen Norway, an annual screening volume between 4000-10 000 screen-readings was considered to give the most optimal screening performance (141). In addition, time and length of the screen-reading session may impact radiologists' performance by influencing attention and vigilance (145).…”

Section: Challenges In Mammographic Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

True and Missed Interval Cancer in Organized Mammographic Screening: A Retrospective Review Study of Diagnostic and Prior Screening Mammograms

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…2,3 Some of these properties depend on viewing history and can include long-term factors, such as perceptual learning and visual expertise, 4,5 as well as short-term changes from sequential reading effects, particularly when images are read in batches as in breast-cancer screening exams. A number of sequential effects such as fatigue, 6,7 vigilance, 8 and sequential bias 9 have been examined as potential sources of degraded reading performance. In this work, we investigate sequential effects resulting from visual adaptation, or changes in visual sensitivity that result from changes in the stimulus.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual adaptation to medical images: a comparison of digital mammography and tomosynthesis

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Radiologists and other image readers spend prolonged periods inspecting medical images. The visual system can rapidly adapt or adjust sensitivity to the images that an observer is currently viewing, and previous studies have demonstrated that this can lead to pronounced changes in the perception of mammogram images. We compared these adaptation effects for images from different imaging modalities to explore both general and modality-specific consequences of adaptation in medical image perception. Approach:We measured perceptual changes induced by adaptation to images acquired by digital mammography (DM) or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), which have both similar and distinct textural properties. Participants (nonradiologists) adapted to images from the same patient acquired from each modality or for different patients with American College of Radiology-Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification of dense or fatty tissue. The participants then judged the appearance of composite images formed by blending the two adapting images (i.e., DM versus DBT or dense versus fatty in each modality).Results: Adaptation to either modality produced similar significant shifts in the perception of dense and fatty textures, reducing the salience of the adapted component in the test images. In side-by-side judgments, a modality-specific adaptation effect was not observed. However, when the images were directly fixated during adaptation and testing, so that the textural differences between the modalities were more visible, significantly different changes in the sensitivity to the noise in the images were observed.Conclusions: These results confirm that observers can readily adapt to the visual properties or spatial textures of medical images in ways that can bias their perception of the images, and that adaptation can also be selective for the distinctive visual features of images acquired by different modalities.

show abstract

Time of day and mammographic reader performance in a population-based breast cancer screening programme

Cited by 3 publications

References 16 publications

Does it matter for the radiologists’ performance whether they read short or long batches in organized mammographic screening?

Does it matter for the radiologists’ performance whether they read short or long batches in organized mammographic screening?

True and Missed Interval Cancer in Organized Mammographic Screening: A Retrospective Review Study of Diagnostic and Prior Screening Mammograms

Visual adaptation to medical images: a comparison of digital mammography and tomosynthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About