@inproceedings{3fa2336dd3e247c9b733d90de9e669e1,
title = "Sequential reading effects in Dutch screening mammography",
abstract = "Radiologists reading screening mammograms often do this in batches of images read sequentially. This work investigates ways that readers change over the course of a batch. We evaluate sequential reading effects in terms of suspicion scores and reading times from an ongoing study in the Netherlands. A set of 3510 screening cases read as part of a national screening program by 10 qualified radiologist readers forms the basis for our study. The readers give a suspicion score (on a standalone device) in addition to their standard screening report. The score is time-stamped so that reading order and batch grouping can be assessed. Batches are defined as groups of cases with less than 10 minutes (600 s) between sequential readings. We use Kendall's Tau, weighted by batch size, as a measure of association between batch position, and suspicion score or reading time. Randomization is used to get confidence intervals on the null hypothesis (τ=0). We find significant associations between batch position and both of the variables under investigation (suspicion scores and reading time). The associations are negative, suggesting that both suspicion and reading time are reduced at later points in a batch. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that readers are becoming visually adapted to the properties of the images as they progress through a batch of cases, affecting their perception and decisions about the images.",
keywords = "Batch reading, Screening mammography, Sequential effects, Visual adaptation",
author = "Abbey, \{Craig K.\} and Webster, \{Michael A.\} and Tanya Geertse and \{Van Der Waal\}, Danielle and Eric Tetteroo and Ruud Pijnappel and Broeders, \{Mireille J.M.\} and Ioannis Sechopoulos",
note = "Funding Information: The authors are grateful to all the screening radiologists and screening organizations (Foundation of Population Screening East, Foundation of Population Screening South and Foundation of Population Screening South-West) that participated in the ROCS study. This work was supported in part by the NIH through a research grant EY-010834 (MW). The content of this proceedings paper is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the institutional views of the funding agencies. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2020 SPIE.; Medical Imaging 2020: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment ; Conference date: 19-02-2020 Through 20-02-2020",
year = "2020",
doi = "10.1117/12.2549320",
language = "English",
series = "Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE",
publisher = "SPIE",
editor = "Samuelson, \{Frank W.\} and Sian Taylor-Phillips",
booktitle = "Medical Imaging 2020",
address = "United States",
}