posted on 2010-06-03, 09:23authored byYan Chen, Alastair Gale, Hazel J. Scott
In the UK, most mammographic interpretation training needs to be undertaken where there is a mammo-alternator or
other suitable light box; consequently limiting the time and places where training can take place. However, the gradual
introduction of digital mammography is opening up new opportunities of providing such training without the restriction
of current viewing devices. Whilst high-resolution monitors in appropriate viewing environments are de rigour for actual
reporting; advantages of the digital image over film are in the flexibility of training opportunity afforded, e.g. training
whenever, wherever suits the individual. A previous study indicated the possible potential for reporting mammographic
cases utilising handheld devices with suitable interaction techniques. In a pilot study, a group of mammographers (n=4)
were questioned in semi-structured interviews in order to help establish current UK film-readers’ training profile. On the
basis of the pilot study data, 109 Breast Screening Units (601 film readers) were approached to complete a structured
questionnaire in order to establish the potential role of smaller computer devices in mammographic interpretation
training (given the use of digital mammography). Subsequently, a study of radiologists' visual search behaviour in digital
screening has begun. This has highlighted different image manipulations than found in structured experiments in this
area and poses new challenges for visualising the inspection process. Overall the results indicate that using different
display sizes for training is possible but is also a challenging task requiring novel interaction approaches.
History
School
Science
Department
Computer Science
Citation
CHEN, Y., GALE, A.G. and SCOTT. H., 2009. Mammographic interpretation training profile in the UK: current difficulties and future outlook. IN: Sahiner, B. and Manning, D.J. (eds.). Medical Imaging 2009: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment. Proceedings of SPIE 7263,72631C.
Copyright 2009 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers. One print or electronic copy may be made for personal use only. Systematic electronic or print reproduction and distribution, duplication of any material in this paper for a fee or for commercial purposes, or modification of the content of the paper are prohibited. This paper can also be found at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.810730