The reliability of radiologists' first impression interpreting a screening mammogram

Ziba Gandomkar; Somphone Siviengphanom; Mo'ayyad Suleiman; Dennis Wong; Warren Reed; Ernest U. Ekpo; Dong Xu; Sarah J. Lewis; Patrick C. Brennan

doi:10.1117/12.2612803

4 April 2022 The reliability of radiologists' first impression interpreting a screening mammogram

Ziba Gandomkar, Somphone Siviengphanom, Mo'ayyad Suleiman, Dennis Wong, Warren Reed, Ernest U. Ekpo, Dong Xu, Sarah J. Lewis, Patrick C. Brennan

Author Affiliations +

Proceedings Volume 12035, Medical Imaging 2022: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment; 120350R (2022) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2612803
Event: SPIE Medical Imaging, 2022, San Diego, California, United States

Abstract

The initial impressions about the presence of abnormality (or gist signal) from some radiologists are as accurate as decisions made following normal presentation conditions while the performance from others is only slightly better than chance-level. This study investigates if there is a subset of radiologists (i.e., “super-gisters”), whose gist signal is more reliable and consistently more accurate than others. To measure the gist signal, images were presented for less than a half-second. We collected the gist signals from thirty-nine radiologists, who assessed 160 mammograms twice with a wash-out period of one month. Readers were categorized as “super-gisters” and “others” by fitting a mixture of Gaussian models to the average Area Under Receiver Operating Characteristics curve (AUC) values of radiologists in two rounds. The median intra-class correlation (ICC) for the “supergisters” was 0.63 (IQR: 0.51-0.691) while the median ICC for the “others” was 0.51 (IQR: 0.42-0.59). The difference between the two groups was significant (p=0.015). The number of mammograms interpreted by the radiologist per week did not differ significantly between “super-gisters” and others (medians of 237 versus 200, p=0.336). The linear mixed model, which treated both case and reader as random variables showed that only “super-gisters” can perceive the gist of the abnormal on negative prior mammograms, from women who developed breast cancer. Although detecting gist signal is noisy, a sub-set of readers have the superior capability in detecting the gist of the abnormal and only the scores given by them are useful and reliable for predicting future breast cancer.

Conference Presentation

Citation Download Citation

Ziba Gandomkar, Somphone Siviengphanom, Mo'ayyad Suleiman, Dennis Wong, Warren Reed, Ernest U. Ekpo, Dong Xu, Sarah J. Lewis, and Patrick C. Brennan "The reliability of radiologists' first impression interpreting a screening mammogram", Proc. SPIE 12035, Medical Imaging 2022: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, 120350R (4 April 2022); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2612803

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available