2024
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2309576121
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fatigue and vigilance in medical experts detecting breast cancer

Sian Taylor-Phillips,
David Jenkinson,
Chris Stinton
et al.

Abstract: An abundance of laboratory-based experiments has described a vigilance decrement of reducing accuracy to detect targets with time on task, but there are few real-world studies, none of which have previously controlled the environment to control for bias. We describe accuracy in clinical practice for 360 experts who examined >1 million women’s mammograms for signs of cancer, whilst controlling for potential biases. The vigilance decrement pattern was not observed. Instead, test accuracy improved over time, t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 41 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, the survival benefit achieved, through screening women with BRCA mutations (high pre-test probability), using fpMRI, is dependent on fpMRI’s high sensitivity for aggressive breast cancers and necessitates the prioritisation of sensitivity over specificity for this relatively small population of women [ 19 21 ]. In contrast, the specificity for mammographic mass screening that is achieved through double reading in the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP), is 96% [ 22 ] while reported reader sensitivity is much lower (67–78%) [ 23 ]. For population-risk women, who have a low pre-test probability, specificity is arguably the most important diagnostic accuracy parameter to optimise because small changes in specificity can have a large effect on the number of false positive recalls in a population screening programme, with each recall causing harm to the woman screened and also incurring a financial and workforce cost [ 24 26 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, the survival benefit achieved, through screening women with BRCA mutations (high pre-test probability), using fpMRI, is dependent on fpMRI’s high sensitivity for aggressive breast cancers and necessitates the prioritisation of sensitivity over specificity for this relatively small population of women [ 19 21 ]. In contrast, the specificity for mammographic mass screening that is achieved through double reading in the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP), is 96% [ 22 ] while reported reader sensitivity is much lower (67–78%) [ 23 ]. For population-risk women, who have a low pre-test probability, specificity is arguably the most important diagnostic accuracy parameter to optimise because small changes in specificity can have a large effect on the number of false positive recalls in a population screening programme, with each recall causing harm to the woman screened and also incurring a financial and workforce cost [ 24 26 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%