University Library
  • Login
A gateway to Melbourne's research publications
Minerva Access is the University's Institutional Repository. It aims to collect, preserve, and showcase the intellectual output of staff and students of the University of Melbourne for a global audience.
View Item 
  • Minerva Access
  • Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences
  • Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences
  • Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences - Research Publications
  • View Item
  • Minerva Access
  • Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences
  • Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences
  • Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences - Research Publications
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Comparing Breast Screening Protocols: Inserting Catch Trials Does Not Improve Sensitivity over Double Screening

    Thumbnail
    Download
    Published version (1.320Mb)

    Citations
    Scopus
    Altmetric
    1
    Author
    Chen, W; Howe, PDL
    Date
    2016-10-10
    Source Title
    PLoS One
    Publisher
    PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
    University of Melbourne Author/s
    Howe, Piers; Chen, Weijia
    Affiliation
    Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Document Type
    Journal Article
    Citations
    Chen, W. & Howe, P. D. L. (2016). Comparing Breast Screening Protocols: Inserting Catch Trials Does Not Improve Sensitivity over Double Screening. PLOS ONE, 11 (10), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163928.
    Access Status
    Open Access
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/11343/260427
    DOI
    10.1371/journal.pone.0163928
    Abstract
    Breast screening is an important tool for the early detection of breast cancers. However, tumours are typically present in less than 1% of mammograms. This low prevalence could cause radiologists to detect fewer tumours than they otherwise would, an issue known as the prevalence effect. The aim of our study was to investigate a novel breast screening protocol, designed to decrease the number of tumours missed by radiologists, without increasing their workload. We ran two laboratory-based experiments to assess the degree to which the novel protocol, called the catch trial (CT) protocol, resulted in greater sensitivity (d') than the double screener protocol (DS), currently utilised in Australia. In our first experiment we found evidence that the CT protocol resulted in a criterion shift relative to the DS protocol but the evidence that sensitivity was greater in the CT protocol relative to the DS protocol was less clear. A second experiment, using more realistic stimuli that were more representative of actual tumours, also failed to find convincing evidence that sensitivity was greater in the CT protocol than in the DS protocol. This experiment instead found that both the hit rate and the false alarm rate increased in the CT protocol relative to the DS protocol. So while there was again evidence that the CT protocol induced a criterion shift, the sensitivity appeared to be approximately the same in both protocols. Our results suggest the CT protocol is unlikely to result in an improvement in sensitivity over the DS protocol, so we cannot recommend that it be trialled in a clinical setting.

    Export Reference in RIS Format     

    Endnote

    • Click on "Export Reference in RIS Format" and choose "open with... Endnote".

    Refworks

    • Click on "Export Reference in RIS Format". Login to Refworks, go to References => Import References


    Collections
    • Minerva Elements Records [52369]
    • Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences - Research Publications [1222]
    Minerva AccessDepositing Your Work (for University of Melbourne Staff and Students)NewsFAQs

    BrowseCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects
    My AccountLoginRegister
    StatisticsMost Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors