Interpretion error in mammography: taxonomy and measurement

Abstract Human error in the interpretation of screening and diagnostic mammograms is now recognized to be a significant problem in the United States. Obviously, problems that are not well understood, well characterized, or well measured cannot be effectively remedied. It is the goal of this article to provide the basic conceptual elements required for science to effectively attack the problem of error in the interpretation of screening mammograms. These essential elements form a taxonomy for describing the varieties of human error and a conceptual model for measurement. The taxonomy builds on seminal work performed in the area of perception research in radiology. The conceptual model for measurement enumerates key varieties of different measurement endpoints and their purpose. The article concludes by pointing out where the next round of this important new area of research must focus.

[1]  E. Conant,et al.  Factors affecting radiologist inconsistency in screening mammography. , 2002, Academic radiology.

[2]  M Moskowitz,et al.  Observer variation in the interpretation of xeromammograms. , 1982, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[3]  N. Wald,et al.  Breast cancer screening: the current position. , 1991, BMJ.

[4]  C. Beam,et al.  Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample. , 1996, Archives of internal medicine.

[5]  M. Giger,et al.  Improving breast cancer diagnosis with computer-aided diagnosis. , 1999, Academic radiology.

[6]  C R Key,et al.  Biologic characteristics of interval and screen-detected breast cancers. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[7]  L. Liberman,et al.  Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). , 2002, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[8]  G. P. Cohen,et al.  Characteristics of breast carcinomas missed by screening radiologists. , 1997, Radiology.

[9]  H L Kundel,et al.  Visual scanning, pattern recognition and decision-making in pulmonary nodule detection. , 1978, Investigative radiology.

[10]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Error in radiology: classification and lessons in 182 cases presented at a problem case conference. , 1992, Radiology.

[11]  P. Wingo,et al.  Cancer statistics, 1995 , 1995, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[12]  R. Bird,et al.  Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. , 1992, Radiology.

[13]  Craig A. Beam,et al.  Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample. , 1996, Archives of internal medicine.

[14]  R. Fitzgerald.  Error in radiology. , 2001, Clinical radiology.

[15]  C. Nodine,et al.  Nature of expertise in searching mammograms for breast masses , 1996, Medical Imaging.

[16]  H L Kundel,et al.  Update on long-term goals for medical image perception research. , 1998, Academic radiology.

[17]  P F Judy,et al.  The Medical Image Perception Society. Key issues for image perception research. , 1998, Radiology.

[18]  E. Conant,et al.  How experience and training influence mammography expertise. , 1999, Academic radiology.

[19]  H. Simon,et al.  Perception in chess , 1973 .

[20]  H L Kundel,et al.  Medical image perception. , 1995, Academic radiology.

[21]  Ulf Nyman,et al.  Nephrotoxicity after renal angiography using iodine and gadolinium contrast media in pigs with renal damage. , 2002, Academic radiology.