Neo-Sumerian account Texts in the Horn Archaeological Museum: Seal Impressions

While Sigrist supplies linguistic analysis, Gavin and his assistants provide composite drawings of the seal impressions. AU Press cataloguehttps://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/books/1080/thumbnail.jp

Reactions to uncertainty and the accuracy of diagnostic mammography.

BackgroundReactions to uncertainty in clinical medicine can affect decision making.ObjectiveTo assess the extent to which radiologists' reactions to uncertainty influence diagnostic mammography interpretation.DesignCross-sectional responses to a mailed survey assessed reactions to uncertainty using a well-validated instrument. Responses were linked to radiologists' diagnostic mammography interpretive performance obtained from three regional mammography registries.ParticipantsOne hundred thirty-two radiologists from New Hampshire, Colorado, and Washington.MeasurementMean scores and either standard errors or confidence intervals were used to assess physicians' reactions to uncertainty. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit via generalized estimating equations to assess the impact of uncertainty on diagnostic mammography interpretive performance while adjusting for potential confounders.ResultsWhen examining radiologists' interpretation of additional diagnostic mammograms (those after screening mammograms that detected abnormalities), a 5-point increase in the reactions to uncertainty score was associated with a 17% higher odds of having a positive mammogram given cancer was diagnosed during follow-up (sensitivity), a 6% lower odds of a negative mammogram given no cancer (specificity), a 4% lower odds (not significant) of a cancer diagnosis given a positive mammogram (positive predictive value [PPV]), and a 5% higher odds of having a positive mammogram (abnormal interpretation).ConclusionMammograms interpreted by radiologists who have more discomfort with uncertainty have higher likelihood of being recalled

Feasibility and Acceptability of Conducting a Randomized Clinical Trial Designed to Improve Interpretation of Screening Mammography

To describe recruitment, enrollment and participation in a study of U.S. radiologists invited to participate in a randomized controlled trial of two continuing medical education interventions designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography

Association Between Time Spent Interpreting, Level of Confidence, and Accuracy of Screening Mammography

To examine the effect of time spent viewing images and level of confidence on a screening mammography test set on interpretive performance

Accuracy of Short-Interval Follow-Up Mammograms by Patient and Radiologist Characteristics

The purpose of our study was to examine the accuracy of short-interval follow-up mammograms and evaluate patient and radiologist characteristics associated with accuracy

Performance of diagnostic mammography differs in the United States and Denmark

Diagnostic mammography is the primary imaging modality to diagnose breast cancer. However, few studies have evaluated variability in diagnostic mammography performance in communities, and none has done so between countries. We compared diagnostic mammography performance in community-based settings in the United States and Denmark. The performance of 93,585 diagnostic mammograms from 180 facilities contributing data to the U.S. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) from 1999 through 2001 was compared to that of all 51,313 diagnostic mammograms performed at Danish clinics in 2000. We used the imaging workup’s final assessment to determine sensitivity, specificity, and an estimate of accuracy: area under the receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve (AUC). Diagnostic mammography had slightly higher sensitivity in the United States (85%) than in Denmark (82%). In contrast, it had higher specificity in Denmark (99%) than in the United States (93%). The AUC was high in both countries: U.S. 0.91; and Denmark 0.95. Denmark’s higher accuracy may result from supplementary ultrasound examinations, which are provided to 74% of Danish women but only 37% to 52% of U.S. women. In addition, Danish mammography facilities specialize in either diagnosis or screening, possibly leading to greater diagnostic mammography expertise in facilities dedicated to symptomatic patients. Performance of community-based diagnostic mammography settings varied markedly between the two countries, indicating that it can be further optimized

Establishing a Gold Standard for Test Sets. Variation in Interpretive Agreement of Expert Mammographers

Test sets for assessing and improving radiologic image interpretation have been used for decades and typically evaluate performance relative to gold-standard interpretations by experts. To assess test sets for screening mammography, a gold-standard for whether a woman should be recalled for additional work-up is needed, given that interval cancers may be occult on mammography and some findings ultimately determined to be benign require additional imaging to determine if biopsy is warranted. Using experts to set a gold-standard assumes little variation occurs in their interpretations, but this has not been explicitly studied in mammography

Radiologists' Attitudes and Use of Mammography Audit Reports

The U.S. Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) mandates medical audits to track breast cancer outcomes data associated with interpretive performance. The objectives of our study were to assess the content and style of audits and examine use of, attitudes toward, and perceptions of the value that radiologists' have regarding mandated medical audits

Radiologist Agreement for Mammographic Recall by Case Difficulty and Finding Type

To assess agreement of mammography interpretations by community radiologists with consensus interpretations of an expert radiology panel, to inform approaches that improve mammography performance

Effect of Radiologists’ Diagnostic Work-up Volume on Interpretive Performance

We found that radiologists with a higher annual volume of work-ups for recalled screening mammograms they initially interpreted had consistently higher screening sensitivity and cancer detection rates; however, these performance improvements were accompanied by higher false-positive rates