Comparable prediction of breast cancer risk from a glimpse or a first impression of a mammogram

Abstract Expert radiologists can discern normal from abnormal mammograms with above-chance accuracy after brief (e.g. 500 ms) exposure. They can even predict cancer risk viewing currently normal images (priors) from women who will later develop cancer. This involves a rapid, global, non-selective pr...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	E. M. Raat, I. Farr, J. M. Wolfe, K. K. Evans
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	SpringerOpen 2021
Materias:	Gist Radiology Mammography Holistic impression Gestalt Consciousness. Cognition BF309-499
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/6166177c594d4b8b86f3012430dfa977
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:6166177c594d4b8b86f3012430dfa977
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:6166177c594d4b8b86f3012430dfa9772021-11-08T11:02:37ZComparable prediction of breast cancer risk from a glimpse or a first impression of a mammogram10.1186/s41235-021-00339-52365-7464https://doaj.org/article/6166177c594d4b8b86f3012430dfa9772021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00339-5https://doaj.org/toc/2365-7464Abstract Expert radiologists can discern normal from abnormal mammograms with above-chance accuracy after brief (e.g. 500 ms) exposure. They can even predict cancer risk viewing currently normal images (priors) from women who will later develop cancer. This involves a rapid, global, non-selective process called “gist extraction”. It is not yet known whether prolonged exposure can strengthen the gist signal, or if it is available solely in the early exposure. This is of particular interest for the priors that do not contain any localizable signal of abnormality. The current study compared performance with brief (500 ms) or unlimited exposure for four types of mammograms (normal, abnormal, contralateral, priors). Groups of expert radiologists and untrained observers were tested. As expected, radiologists outperformed naïve participants. Replicating prior work, they exceeded chance performance though the gist signal was weak. However, we found no consistent performance differences in radiologists or naïves between timing conditions. Exposure time neither increased nor decreased ability to identify the gist of abnormality or predict cancer risk. If gist signals are to have a place in cancer risk assessments, more efforts should be made to strengthen the signal.E. M. RaatI. FarrJ. M. WolfeK. K. EvansSpringerOpenarticleGistRadiologyMammographyHolistic impressionGestaltConsciousness. CognitionBF309-499ENCognitive Research, Vol 6, Iss 1, Pp 1-14 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Gist Radiology Mammography Holistic impression Gestalt Consciousness. Cognition BF309-499
spellingShingle	Gist Radiology Mammography Holistic impression Gestalt Consciousness. Cognition BF309-499 E. M. Raat I. Farr J. M. Wolfe K. K. Evans Comparable prediction of breast cancer risk from a glimpse or a first impression of a mammogram
description	Abstract Expert radiologists can discern normal from abnormal mammograms with above-chance accuracy after brief (e.g. 500 ms) exposure. They can even predict cancer risk viewing currently normal images (priors) from women who will later develop cancer. This involves a rapid, global, non-selective process called “gist extraction”. It is not yet known whether prolonged exposure can strengthen the gist signal, or if it is available solely in the early exposure. This is of particular interest for the priors that do not contain any localizable signal of abnormality. The current study compared performance with brief (500 ms) or unlimited exposure for four types of mammograms (normal, abnormal, contralateral, priors). Groups of expert radiologists and untrained observers were tested. As expected, radiologists outperformed naïve participants. Replicating prior work, they exceeded chance performance though the gist signal was weak. However, we found no consistent performance differences in radiologists or naïves between timing conditions. Exposure time neither increased nor decreased ability to identify the gist of abnormality or predict cancer risk. If gist signals are to have a place in cancer risk assessments, more efforts should be made to strengthen the signal.
format	article
author	E. M. Raat I. Farr J. M. Wolfe K. K. Evans
author_facet	E. M. Raat I. Farr J. M. Wolfe K. K. Evans
author_sort	E. M. Raat
title	Comparable prediction of breast cancer risk from a glimpse or a first impression of a mammogram
title_short	Comparable prediction of breast cancer risk from a glimpse or a first impression of a mammogram
title_full	Comparable prediction of breast cancer risk from a glimpse or a first impression of a mammogram
title_fullStr	Comparable prediction of breast cancer risk from a glimpse or a first impression of a mammogram
title_full_unstemmed	Comparable prediction of breast cancer risk from a glimpse or a first impression of a mammogram
title_sort	comparable prediction of breast cancer risk from a glimpse or a first impression of a mammogram
publisher	SpringerOpen
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/6166177c594d4b8b86f3012430dfa977
work_keys_str_mv	AT emraat comparablepredictionofbreastcancerriskfromaglimpseorafirstimpressionofamammogram AT ifarr comparablepredictionofbreastcancerriskfromaglimpseorafirstimpressionofamammogram AT jmwolfe comparablepredictionofbreastcancerriskfromaglimpseorafirstimpressionofamammogram AT kkevans comparablepredictionofbreastcancerriskfromaglimpseorafirstimpressionofamammogram
_version_	1718442429586079744

Comparable prediction of breast cancer risk from a glimpse or a first impression of a mammogram

Ejemplares similares