How to discriminate between computer-aided and computer-hindered decisions: A case study in mammography

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 98-107

  Povyakalo, Andrey A ^a   Alberdi, Eugenio ^a   Strigini, Lorenzo ^a   Ayton, Peter ^a  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

automation bias; breast cancer screening; computer advice; computer aided detection; medical decisions

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; PROBABILITY; RADIOGRAPHY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; PROBABILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84872344326     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12465490     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Lyman JA, Cohn WF, Bloomrosen M, Detmer DE. Clinical decision support: progress and opportunities. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010 ; 17 (5). 487-92
2. Alberdi E, Strigini L, Povyakalo A, Ayton P. Why are people's decisions sometimes worse with computer support?. SAFECOMP 2009: The 28th International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security ; 2009 Hamburg, Germany: Springer ; 2009. 18.
3. Goddard K, Roudsari A, Wyatt JC. Automation bias: a systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012 ; 19 (1). 121-7
4. Parasuraman R, Riley V. Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Hum Factors. 1997 ; 39: 230-53
5. Skitka LJ. Accountability and automation bias. Int J Hum Comp Stud. 2000 ; 52: 701-17
6. Taylor PM, Champness J, Given-Wilson RM, Potts HWE, Johnston K. An evaluation of the impact of computer-based prompts on screen readers' interpretation of mammograms. Br J Radiol. 2004 ; 77: 21-7
7. Astley SM, Gilbert FJ. Computer-aided detection in mammography. Clin Radiol. 2004 ; 59 (5). 390-9
8. Taylor P, Champness J, Given-Wilson R, Johnston K, Potts H. Impact of computer-aided detection prompts on the sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography. Health Technol Assess. 2005 ; 9 (6). 1-58
9. Noble M BW, Uhl S, Schoelles K. Computer-aided detection mammography for breast cancer screening: systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009 ; 279 (6). 881-90
10. Warren-Burhenne LJ, Wood SA, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology. 2000 ; 215 (2). 554-62
11. Taylor P, Given-Wilson R, Champness J, Potts HW, Johnston K. Assessing the impact of CAD on the sensitivity and specificity of film readers. Clin Radiol. 2004 ; 59 (12). 1099-105
12. Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, Gillan MGC, et al. Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography. N Engl J Med. 2008 ; 359 (16). 1675-84
13. StriginiLPovyakaloAAAlberdiE. Human-machine diversity in the use of computerised advisory systems: a case study. Proceedings of the International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN'03), 22-25 June 2003, San Francisco, CA. http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/280/.
14. Littlewood B, Miller DR. Conceptual modelling of coincident failures in multi-version software. IEEE Trans Software Eng. 1989 ; 15 (12). 1596-614
15. Littlewood B, Popov P, Strigini L. Modelling software design diversity - a review. ACM Comput Surveys. 2002 ; 33 (2). 177-208
16. Alberdi E, Povyakalo AA, Strigini L, Ayton P. Effects of incorrect CAD output on human decision making in mammography. Acad Radiol. 2004 ; 11 (8). 909-18
17. Alberdi E, Povyakalo AA, Strigini L, et al. Use of computer aided detection tools in screening mammography: a multidisciplinary investigation. Br J Radiol. 2005 ; 78: 31-40
18. Zheng B, Ganott MA, Britton CA, et al. Soft-copy mammographic readings with different computer-assisted detection cuing environments: preliminary findings. Radiology. 2001 ; 221 (3). 633-40
19. Pre-market approval decision. Application P970058: US Food and Drug Administration; 26 June 1998.
20. Wagner RF, Beam CA, Beiden SV. Reader variability in mammography and its implications for expected utility over the population of readers and cases. Med Decis Making. 2004 ; 24 (6). 561-72
21. Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer. 1950 ; 3 (1). 32-5
22. Anscombe FJ. On estimating binomial response relations. Biometrika. 1956 ; 43: 461-4
23. Sakamoto Y, Ishiguro M, Kitagawa G Dordrecht, the Netherlands: D. Reidel ; 1986 :
24. Dobson AJ London: Chapman & Hall ; 1990 :
25. McCullagh P, Nelder JA London: Chapman & Hall ; 1989 :
26. Hosmer DW, Hosmer T, le Cessie S, Lemeshow S. A comparison of goodness-of-fit tests for the logistic regression model. Stat Med. 1997 ; 16 (9). 965-80
27. le Cessie S, van Houwelingen JC. A goodness of fit test for binary regression models, based on smoothing methods. Biometrics. 1991 ; 47: 1267-82
28. SmythG. Pointwise confidence intervals for logit predictions. 24December2002 [cited 25 July 2012]. Available from: http://www.statsci.org/s/ predlogi.html
29. Kirkwood BR, Sterne JAC 2 nd ed.Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science; 2003. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science ; 2003 :
30. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S New York: John Wiley ; 2000 :
31. Gur D, Sumkin JH, Rockette HE, et al. Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 ; 96 (3). 185-90
32. Taylor P, Potts HW. Computer aids and human second reading as interventions in screening mammography: two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate. Eur J Cancer. 2008 ; 44 (6). 798-807