How well do practicing radiologists interpret the results of CAD technology? A quantitative characterization

被引:0
|
作者
Fallon Branch
K. Matthew Williams
Isabella Noel Santana
Jay Hegdé
机构
[1] Augusta University,Department of Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University
[2] Augusta University,Department of Psychological Sciences
[3] Augusta University,Department of Ophthalmology, Medical College of Georgia
[4] Augusta University,James and Jean Culver Vision Discovery Institute
[5] Augusta University,The Graduate School
来源
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications | / 7卷
关键词
Assistive technologies; Base rate neglect; Base rate fallacy; Computer-assisted diagnosis; Miss rate neglect;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Many studies have shown that using a computer-aided detection (CAD) system does not significantly improve diagnostic accuracy in radiology, possibly because radiologists fail to interpret the CAD results properly. We tested this possibility using screening mammography as an illustrative example. We carried out two experiments, one using 28 practicing radiologists, and a second one using 25 non-professional subjects. During each trial, subjects were shown the following four pieces of information necessary for evaluating the actual probability of cancer in a given unseen mammogram: the binary decision of the CAD system as to whether the mammogram was positive for cancer, the true-positive and false-positive rates of the system, and the prevalence of breast cancer in the relevant patient population. Based only on this information, the subjects had to estimate the probability that the unseen mammogram in question was positive for cancer. Additionally, the non-professional subjects also had to decide, based on the same information, whether to recall the patients for additional testing. Both groups of subjects similarly (and significantly) overestimated the cancer probability regardless of the categorical CAD decision, suggesting that this effect is not peculiar to either group. The misestimations were not fully attributable to causes well-known in other contexts, such as base rate neglect or inverse fallacy. Non-professional subjects tended to recall the patients at high rates, even when the actual probably of cancer was at or near zero. Moreover, the recall rates closely reflected the subjects’ estimations of cancer probability. Together, our results show that subjects interpret CAD system output poorly when only the probabilistic information about the underlying decision parameters is available to them. Our results also highlight the need for making the output of CAD systems more readily interpretable, and for providing training and assistance to radiologists in evaluating the output.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] How well do practicing radiologists interpret the results of CAD technology? A quantitative characterization
    Branch, Fallon
    Williams, K. Matthew
    Santana, Isabella Noel
    Hegde, Jay
    COGNITIVE RESEARCH-PRINCIPLES AND IMPLICATIONS, 2022, 7 (01)
  • [2] Rectal Endosonography How well do we interpret the Results?
    Koelln, A.
    COLOPROCTOLOGY, 2011, 33 (02) : 138 - 139
  • [4] How Well Do Radiologists Remember Test Images?
    Haygood, T.
    Galvan, E.
    Lano, E.
    Ernst, R.
    Viswanathan, C.
    Rohren, E.
    Devine, C.
    Marom, E.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2010, 194 (05)
  • [5] Pharmacovigilance and radiologists: How well do they get along?
    Aydin, Ozlem Celik
    Aydin, Sonay
    Guney, Hakki Zafer
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2020, 93 (1115):
  • [6] Quantitative PET Perfusion Imaging How to Interpret the Results?
    Knuuti, Juhani
    Saraste, Antti
    JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR IMAGING, 2021, 14 (05) : 1035 - 1037
  • [7] AUTOMATED PERIMETRY - HOW DO WE INTERPRET THE RESULTS
    WILENSKY, JT
    ARCHIVES OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 1989, 107 (02) : 185 - 186
  • [8] HOW DO PEDIATRICIANS INTERPRET GENITAL FINDINGS IN CHILDREN - RESULTS OF A SURVEY
    ADAMS, JA
    HARPER, K
    WELLS, R
    ADOLESCENT AND PEDIATRIC GYNECOLOGY, 1993, 6 (04): : 203 - 208
  • [9] How well do health professionals interpret diagnostic information? A systematic review
    Whiting, Penny F.
    Davenport, Clare
    Jameson, Catherine
    Burke, Margaret
    Sterne, Jonathan A. C.
    Hyde, Chris
    Ben-Shlomo, Yoav
    BMJ OPEN, 2015, 5 (07):
  • [10] How do we interpret the results of the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial?
    Margolese, RG
    CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 1998, 158 (12) : 1613 - 1614