Investigating the link between radiologists' gaze, diagnostic decision, and image content

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Volumn 20, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 1067-1075

  Tourassi, Georgia ^a   Voisin, Sophie ^a   Paquit, Vincent ^a   Krupinski, Elizabeth ^b  

^a OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COGNITION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; EYE TRACKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE; MACHINE LEARNING; MAMMOGRAPHY; OPHTHALMOLOGICAL DIAGNOSTIC DEVICE; RADIOLOGIST; RESIDENT;

EYE-TRACKING; MACHINE LEARNING; MAMMOGRAPHY; USER MODELING;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COGNITION; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; EYE MOVEMENTS; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAMMOGRAPHY; PILOT PROJECTS; RADIOLOGY; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 84886297620     PISSN: 10675027     EISSN: 1527974X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001503     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Patel VL, Kaufman DR. Medical informatics and the science of cognition. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998;5:493-502.
2. Patel VL, Arocha JF, Kaufman DR. A primer on aspects of cognition for medical informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2001;8:324-43.
3. Krupinski EA. The importance of perception research in medical imaging. Radiat Med 2000;18:329-34.
4. TM) initiative. J Digit Imaging 2004;17:235-43.
5. Krupinski EA. Current perspectives in medical image perception. Atten Percept Psychophys 2010;72:1205-17.
6. Krupinski EA, Berbaum KS. The medical image perception society update on key issues for image perception research. Radiology 2009;253:230-3.
7. Kulikowski CA, Shortliffe EH, Currie LM, et al. AMIA Board white paper: definition of biomedical informatics and specification of core competencies for graduate education in the discipline. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012;19:931-38.
8. Giger ML, Chan HP, Boone J. Anniversary paper: history and status of CAD and quantitative image analysis: the role of medical physics and AAPM. Med Phys 2008;35:5799-820.
9. Garland LH. On the scientific evaluation of diagnostic procedures. Radiology 1949;52:309-28.
10. Garland LH. Studies on accuracy of diagnostic procedures. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 1959;82:25-38.
11. Robinson PJ. Radiology's Achilles' heel: error and variation in the interpretation of the Röntgen image. Br J Radiol 1997;70:1085-98.
12. Berlin L. Accuracy of diagnostic procedures: has it improved over the past five decades Am J Roentg (AJR) 2007;188:1173-8.
13. Reiner B, Krupinski EA. The insidious problem of fatigue in medical imaging practice. J Dig Img 2012;25:3-6.
14. Krupinski EA, Berbaum KS, Caldwell RT, et al. Long radiology workdays reduce detection and accommodation accuracy. J Am Coll Radiol 2010;7:698-704.
15. Meyer J. Age: Census 2000 brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001: C2KBR/01-12.
16. Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA. Factors affecting radiologist inconsistency in screening mammography. Acad Radiol 2002;9:531-40.
17. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC. Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 1992;184:613-17.
18. Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM, O'Shaughnessy KF, et al. Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection. Radiology 2001;219:192-202.
19. Yankaskas BC, Schell MJ, Bird RE, et al. Reassessment of breast cancers missed during routine screening mammography: a community-based study. Am J Roentg (AJR) 2001;177:535-41.
20. Atlas SW. Embracing subspecialization: the key to the survival of radiology. Am J Roentg (AJR) 2007;4:752-3.
21. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002;224:861-9.
22. Jensen A, Vejborg I, Severinsen N, et al. Performance of clinical mammography: a nationwide study from Denmark. Int J Cancer 2006;119:183-91.
23. Krupinski EA. Influence of experience on scanning strategies in mammography. Proc SPIE Med Imag 1996;2712:95-101.
24. Mugglestone MD, Gale AG, Cowley HC. Defining the perceptual processes involved with mammographic diagnostic errors. Proc SPIE Med Imag 1996;2712:71-7.
25. Krupinski EA. Visual scanning patterns of radiologists searching mammograms. Acad Radiol 1996;3:137-44.
26. Nodine CF, Mello-Thoms C, Weinstein SP, et al. Blinded review of retrospectively visible unreported breast cancers: an eye-position analysis. Radiology 2001;221:122-9.
27. Mello-Thoms C, Hardesty L, Sumkin J, et al. Effects of lesion conspicuity on visual search in mammogram reading. Acad Radiol 2005;12:830-40.
28. Mello-Thoms C. How does the perception of a lesion influence visual search strategy in mammogram reading Acad Radiol 2006;13:275-88.
29. Mello-Thoms C, Britton C, Abrams G, et al. Head-mounted versus remote eye tracking of radiologists searching for breast cancer A comparison. Acad Radiol 2006;13:203-9.
30. Samuel S, Kundel HL, Nodine CF, et al. Mechanism of satisfaction of search: eye position recordings in the reading of chest radiographs. Radiology 1995;194:895-902.
31. Manning DJ, Ethell SC, Donovan T. Detection or decision errors Missed lung cancer from the posteroanterior chest radiograph. BJR 2004;77:231-5.
32. Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Carmody D. Visual scanning, pattern recognition and decision-making in pulmonary nodule detection. Invest Radiol 1978;13:175-81.
33. Kundel HL. How to minimize perceptual error and maximize expertise in medical imaging. Proc SPIE 2007;6515:651508-1-11.
34. Nodine CF, Kundell HL, Lauver SC, et al. Nature of expertise in searching mammograms for breast masses. Acad Radiol 1996;3:1000-6.
35. Krupinski EA, Kundel HL, Nodine CF. Enhancing recognition of lesions in radiographic images using perceptual feedback. Opt Engin 1998;37:813-18.
36. Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Krupinski EA. Computer-displayed eye-position as a visual aid to pulmonary nodule interpretation. Invest Radiol 1990;25:890-6.
37. Carmody DP, Nodine CF, Kundel HL. Finding lung nodules with and without comparative visual scanning. Percept Psychophys 1981;29:594-8.
38. Nodine CF, Kundel HL. A visual dwell algorithm can aid search and recognition of missed lung nodules in chest radiographs. Visual Search 1990;2:399-406.
39. Litchfield D, Ball LJ, Donovan T, et al. Viewing another person's eye movements improves identification of pulmonary nodules in chest x-ray inspection. J Exp Psychol Appl 2010;16:251-62.
40. Mello-Thoms C, Dunn SM, Nodine CF, et al. The perception of breast cancers-a spatial frequency analysis of what differentiates missed from reported cancers. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2003;22:1297-306.
41. Mello-Thoms C, Dunn SM, Nodine CF, et al. An analysis of perceptual errors in reading mammograms using quasi-local spatial frequency spectra. J Digit Imaging 2001;14:117-23.
42. Pietrzyk MW, Brennan PC, Donovan T, et al. Classification of radiological errors in chest radiographs, using support vector machine on the spatial frequency features of false-negative and false-positive regions. Proc SPIE 2011;7966:79660A.
43. Heath M, Bowyer K, Kopans D, et al. Current status of the digital database for screening mammography. In: Digital Mammography. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998. http://marathon.csee.usf.edu/Mammography/Database.html5
44. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS). 4th edn. VA: American College of Radiology, 2003.
45. Nodine CF, Kundel L, Toto C, et al. Recording and analyzing eye-position data using a microcomputer workstation. Behavior Res Methods Instrum Comput 1992;24:475-85.
46. Kundel HL, LaFolette PS. Visual search patterns and experience with radiological images. Radiology 1972;103:523-8.
47. Mackworth NH. Stimulus density limits the useful field of view. In: Monty RA, Senders JW. eds. Eye movements and psychological processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1976:307-22.
48. Krupinski EA, Nishikawa R. Comparison of eye position versus computer identified microcalcification clusters on mammograms. Med Phys 1997;24:17-23.
49. Haralick RM, Shanmugam K, Dinstein I. Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 1973;Smc-3:610-21.
50. Haralick RM, Shapiro LG. Computer and robot vision. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co, 1992.
51. Rubner Y, Tomasi C. Perceptual metrics for image database navigation. Springer, 2001.
52. Hubel DH, Weisel TN. Receptive fields and functional architecture in two nonstriate visual areas (18 and 19) of the cat. J Neurophysiol 1965;28:229-89.
53. Campbell FW, Robson JG. Application of Fourier analysis to the visibility of gratings. J Physiol 1968;197:551-66.
54. Manjunath BS, Ma WY. Texture features for browsing and retrieval of image data. Pattern Anal Mach Intell 1996;18:837-42.
55. Hall M, Frank E, Holmes G, et al. The WEKA data mining software: an update. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 2009;vol. 11:10-18.
56. Tourassi GD. Receiver operating characteristics analysis: basic concepts and practical application. Handbook of medical image perception and techniques. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
57. Eng J. ROC analysis: web-based calculator for ROC curves. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University [updated 17 May 2006]. http://www.jrocfit.org
58. Mazurowski MA, Baker JA, Barnhart HA, et al. Individualized computer-aided education in mammography based on user modeling: concept and preliminary experiments. Med Phys 2010;37:1152-60.
59. Mazurowski MA, Barnhart HA, Baker JA, et al. Identifying error-making patterns in assessment of mammographic BI-RADS descriptors among radiology residents using statistical pattern recognition. Acad Radiol 2012;19:865-71.
60. Mello-Thoms C, Dunn S, Nodine CF, et al. The perception of breast cancer: what differentiates missed from reported cancers in mammography Acad Radiol 2002;9:1004-12.
61. Gur D, Rockette HE, Armfield DR, et al. Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment. Radiology 2003;228:10-14.
62. Gur D, Bandos AJ, Cohen CS, et al. The "laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography Interpretations. Radiology 2008;249:47-53.
63. Krupinski EA. Softcopy reading. Digital mammography. Springer, 2010;107-119.
64. Skaane P, Diekmann F, Balleyguier C, et al. Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading. Eur Radiol 2008;18:1134-43.
65. Tourassi GD, Mazurowski MA, Harrawood BP, et al. Exploring the potential of context-sensitive CADe in screening mammography. Med Phys 2010;37:5728-36.