What do radiologists look for? Advances and limitations of perceptual learning in radiologic search

Abstract

Supported by guidance from training during residency programs, radiologists learn clinically relevant visual features by viewing thousands of medical images. Yet the precise visual features that expert radiologists use in their clinical practice remain unknown. Identifying such features would allow the development of perceptual learning training methods targeted to the optimization of radiology training and the reduction of medical error. Here we review attempts to bridge current gaps in understanding with a focus on computational saliency models that characterize and predict gaze behavior in radiologists. There have been great strides toward the accurate prediction of relevant medical information within images, thereby facilitating the development of novel computer-aided detection and diagnostic tools. In some cases, computational models have achieved equivalent sensitivity to that of radiologists, suggesting that we may be close to identifying the underlying visual representations that radiologists use. However, because the relevant bottom-up features vary across task context and imaging modalities, it will also be necessary to identify relevant top-down factors before perceptual expertise in radiology can be fully understood. Progress along these dimensions will improve the tools available for educating new generations of radiologists, and aid in the detection of medically relevant information, ultimately improving patient health. Error rates in radiology The long-term goal of most studies of radiologist performance is to reduce error. Although it is difficult to determine the precise error rates in current clinical practice, it is clear that reductions in error rate would improve patient care. The diagnostic error rate in a typical clinical practice (comprising both normal

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Eye tracking: empirical foundations for a minimal reporting guideline

“…For instance, expert chess players tend to have fewer, longer fixations in the middle, while novices scan more (Charness et al, 2001). Expert radiologists tend to fixate abnormalities earlier than novices (Nodine et al, 2002;Alexander et al, 2020). Even the ability to keep one's eye still is affected by training and experience (Cherici et al, 2012;Di Russo et al, 2003).…”

Deep-learning-based generation of synthetic 6-minute MRI from 2-minute MRI for use in head and neck cancer radiotherapy

“…However, while the contrast in these nodal regions was often visibly different in synthetic images, their relative size, shape, and texture may remain similar to the ground-truth image. It has been suggested that geometrical properties, i.e., size, shape, and texture, are often particularly important for image segmentation ( 58 , 59 ). Therefore, cases where tumor volume synthesis “fails” may not necessarily render these images clinically unusable, but additional research should be performed to verify these claims.…”

Visual Illusions in Radiology: Untrue Perceptions in Medical Images and Their Implications for Diagnostic Accuracy

“…Thus, we recommend that referral clinicians look at their patients' studies rather than relying solely on the radiology report. While radiologists' perceptual abilities to detect abnormalities are more developed than those of referral clinicians (Reinus, 1995;Waite et al, 2019Waite et al, , 2020Alexander et al, 2020), a second viewer who is more attuned to the patient's history may notice details that the first viewer missed.…”