Does preference influence performance when reading different sizes of cranial computed tomography?

Antje C. Venjakob; Tim Marnitz; Lavier Gomes; Claudia R. Mello-Thoms

doi:10.1117/1.JMI.1.3.035503

Translator Disclaimer

22 December 2014 Does preference influence performance when reading different sizes of cranial computed tomography?

Antje C. Venjakob, Tim Marnitz, Lavier Gomes, Claudia R. Mello-Thoms

Author Affiliations +

J. of Medical Imaging, 1(3), 035503 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.1.3.035503

Abstract

Radiology practice is based on the implicit assumption that the preference for a particular presentation mode goes hand in hand with superior performance. The present experiment tests this assumption in what pertains to image size. Forty-three radiologists were asked to identify intracranial hemorrhages on 20 cranial computed tomography scans in two image sizes, 14×14 and 28×28 cm. They were asked to indicate which size they preferred and subsequently rated each size on a continuous scale in terms of how much they liked them. The results show no correlation between the jackknife free-response receiver operating characteristic figure of merit and preference rated on a continuous scale (large image: r=0.14, p=0.38; small images: r=0.14, p=0.39). Similarly, there was no significant correlation between the time a radiologist took to read a case and preference rated on the continuous scale (large image: r=−0.07, p=0.64; small images: r=−0.04, p=0.80). When dividing radiologists into two groups according to their size preference, there was no significant difference in performance between groups with regard to either large or small images. The results suggest that the preference for an image size and performance with regard to it are not related

Citation Download Citation

Antje C. Venjakob, Tim Marnitz, Lavier Gomes, and Claudia R. Mello-Thoms "Does preference influence performance when reading different sizes of cranial computed tomography?," Journal of Medical Imaging 1(3), 035503 (22 December 2014). https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.1.3.035503

Published: 22 December 2014

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE