Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJames, Jonathan
dc.contributor.authorCornford, Eleanor J.
dc.date.accessioned2023-03-07T16:01:55Z
dc.date.available2023-03-07T16:01:55Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.citationChen, Y., James, J.J., Cornford, E.J. and Jenkins, J. (2020) 'The Relationship between Mammography Readers' Real-Life Performance and Performance in a Test Set-based Assessment Scheme in a National Breast Screening Program', Radiology Imaging Cancer, 2(5), pp. e200016. doi: 10.1148/rycan.2020200016.en_US
dc.identifier.issn2638-616X
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/16289
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To compare an individual's Personal Performance in Mammographic Screening (PERFORMS) score with their Breast Screening Information System (BSIS) real-life performance data and determine which parameters in the PERFORMS scheme offer the best reflection of BSIS real-life performance metrics., Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, the BSIS real-life performance metrics of individual readers (n = 452) in the National Health Service Breast Screening Program (NHSBSP) in England were compared with performance in the test set-based assessment scheme over a 3-year period from 2013 to 2016. Cancer detection rate (CDR), recall rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated for each reader, for both real-life screening and the PERFORMS test. For each metric, real-life and test set versions were compared using a Pearson correlation. The real-life CDR, recall rate, and PPV of outliers were compared against other readers (nonoutliers) using analysis of variance., Results: BSIS real-life CDRs, recall rates, and PPVs showed positive correlations with the equivalent PERFORMS measures (P < .001, P = .002, and P < .001, respectively). The mean real-life CDR of PERFORMS outliers was 7.2 per 1000 women screened and was significantly lower than other readers (nonoutliers) where the real-life CDR was 7.9 (P = .002). The mean real-life screening PPV of PERFORMS outliers was 0.14% and was significantly lower than the nonoutlier group who had a mean PPV of 0.17% (P = .006)., Conclusion: The use of test set-based assessment schemes in a breast screening program has the potential to predict and identify poor performance in real life.© RSNA, 2020Keywords: Breast, ScreeningSee also the commentary by Thigpen and Rapelyea in this issue. Copyright 2020 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.
dc.description.urihttps://doi.org/10.1148/rycan.2020200016en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherRSNAen_US
dc.subjectAssessmenten_US
dc.subjectMammographyen_US
dc.titleThe relationship between mammography readers' real-life performance and performance in a test set-based assessment scheme in a national breast screening programen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
rioxxterms.funderDefault funderen_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectDefault projecten_US
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_US
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1148/rycan.2020200016en_US
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_US
refterms.dateFCD2023-03-07T16:01:56Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.panelUnspecifieden_US
html.description.abstractPurpose: To compare an individual's Personal Performance in Mammographic Screening (PERFORMS) score with their Breast Screening Information System (BSIS) real-life performance data and determine which parameters in the PERFORMS scheme offer the best reflection of BSIS real-life performance metrics., Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, the BSIS real-life performance metrics of individual readers (n = 452) in the National Health Service Breast Screening Program (NHSBSP) in England were compared with performance in the test set-based assessment scheme over a 3-year period from 2013 to 2016. Cancer detection rate (CDR), recall rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated for each reader, for both real-life screening and the PERFORMS test. For each metric, real-life and test set versions were compared using a Pearson correlation. The real-life CDR, recall rate, and PPV of outliers were compared against other readers (nonoutliers) using analysis of variance., Results: BSIS real-life CDRs, recall rates, and PPVs showed positive correlations with the equivalent PERFORMS measures (P < .001, P = .002, and P < .001, respectively). The mean real-life CDR of PERFORMS outliers was 7.2 per 1000 women screened and was significantly lower than other readers (nonoutliers) where the real-life CDR was 7.9 (P = .002). The mean real-life screening PPV of PERFORMS outliers was 0.14% and was significantly lower than the nonoutlier group who had a mean PPV of 0.17% (P = .006)., Conclusion: The use of test set-based assessment schemes in a breast screening program has the potential to predict and identify poor performance in real life.© RSNA, 2020Keywords: Breast, ScreeningSee also the commentary by Thigpen and Rapelyea in this issue. Copyright 2020 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.en_US
rioxxterms.funder.project94a427429a5bcfef7dd04c33360d80cden_US


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record