Radiologists' interpretive skills in screening vs. diagnostic mammography: are they related?

Joann G. Elmore, Andrea J. Cook, Andy Bogart, Patricia A. Carney, Berta M. Geller, Stephen H. Taplin, Diana S.M. Buist, Tracy Onega, Christoph I. Lee, Diana L. Miglioretti

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Scopus citations


Purpose This study aims to determine whether radiologists who perform well in screening also perform well in interpreting diagnostic mammography. Materials and methods We evaluated the accuracy of 468 radiologists interpreting 2,234,947 screening and 196,164 diagnostic mammograms. Adjusting for site, radiologist, and patient characteristics, we identified radiologists with performance in the highest tertile and compared to those with lower performance. Results A moderate correlation was noted for radiologists' accuracy when interpreting screening versus their accuracy on diagnostic examinations: sensitivity (rspearman=0.51, 95% CI: 0.22, 0.80; P=.0006) and specificity (rspearman=0.40, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.49; P<.0001). Conclusion Different educational approaches to screening and diagnostic imaging should be considered.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1096-1103
Number of pages8
JournalClinical Imaging
Issue number6
StatePublished - Nov 1 2016


  • Diagnostic mammography
  • Interpretive performance
  • Screening mammography
  • Sensitivity
  • Specificity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging


Dive into the research topics of 'Radiologists' interpretive skills in screening vs. diagnostic mammography: are they related?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this