Radiologists who are most experienced at reading virtual colonoscopy studies may not deliver the most accurate results, according to a pilot study presented Monday.
Radiologists who are most experienced at reading virtual colonoscopy studies may not deliver the most accurate results, according to a pilot study presented Monday.
The study compared the performance of six gastrointestinal radiologists with varying levels of expertise in diagnosing colorectal neoplasms with CT colonography. The most experienced had between 40 and 50 cases under their belts, while radiologists with moderate experience had logged 20 to 30 cases. The remaining pair of radiologists had read zero to 20 CT colon exams.
Radiologists with moderate experience demonstrated the best overall performance, showing better overall accuracy than either of the other two groups, said Dr. Martina Morrin, an assistant professor of radiology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.
The moderately experienced radiologists spent an average of 20 minutes per exam, while those with the most experience spent between six and nine minutes interpreting studies.
As the study progresses, researchers will consider the role that overconfidence, as well as on-the-job pressure to expedite results, can play in affecting diagnostic accuracy of CT colonography, Morrin said.
Moreover, the results call into question whether the established threshold of 50 cases as evidence of expertise should be reconsidered, she said. A higher threshold may be warranted in terms of both number of cases and time spent reviewing studies.
"These surprising results tell us that the amount of time spent per study, and not the radiologist's experience, has a bigger influence on diagnostic accuracy," Morrin said. "An average of 20 minutes per study tends to yield a more accurate result, while anything under 10 minutes is likely to render a poor result."
CT Study: AI Algorithm Comparable to Radiologists in Differentiating Small Renal Masses
May 14th 2024An emerging deep learning algorithm had a lower AUC and sensitivity than urological radiologists for differentiating between small renal masses on computed tomography (CT) scans but had a 21 percent higher sensitivity rate than non-urological radiologists, according to new research.
The Reading Room: Artificial Intelligence: What RSNA 2020 Offered, and What 2021 Could Bring
December 5th 2020Nina Kottler, M.D., chief medical officer of AI at Radiology Partners, discusses, during RSNA 2020, what new developments the annual meeting provided about these technologies, sessions to access, and what to expect in the coming year.
Study Finds High Concordance Between AI and Radiologists for Cervical Spine Fractures on CT
May 6th 2024Researchers found a 98.3 percent concordance between attending radiology reports and AI assessments for possible cervical spine fractures on CT, according to new research presented at the 2024 ARRS Annual Meeting.