Holistic processing only? The role of the right fusiform face area in radiological expertise.

Radiologists can visually detect abnormalities on radiographs within 2s, a process that resembles holistic visual processing of faces. Interestingly, there is empirical evidence using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) for the involvement of the right fusiform face area (FFA) in visual-expertise tasks such as radiological image interpretation. The speed by which stimuli (e.g., faces, abnormalities) are recognized is an important characteristic of holistic processing. However, evidence for the involvement of the right FFA in holistic processing in radiology comes mostly from short or artificial tasks in which the quick, 'holistic' mode of diagnostic processing is not contrasted with the slower 'search-to-find' mode. In our fMRI study, we hypothesized that the right FFA responds selectively to the 'holistic' mode of diagnostic processing and less so to the 'search-to-find' mode. Eleven laypeople and 17 radiologists in training diagnosed 66 radiographs in 2s each (holistic mode) and subsequently checked their diagnosis in an extended (10-s) period (search-to-find mode). During data analysis, we first identified individual regions of interest (ROIs) for the right FFA using a localizer task. Then we employed ROI-based ANOVAs and obtained tentative support for the hypothesis that the right FFA shows more activation for radiologists in training versus laypeople, in particular in the holistic mode (i.e., during 2s trials), and less so in the search-to-find mode (i.e., during 10-s trials). No significant correlation was found between diagnostic performance (diagnostic accuracy) and brain-activation level within the right FFA for both, short-presentation and long-presentation diagnostic trials. Our results provide tentative evidence from a diagnostic-reasoning task that the FFA supports the holistic processing of visual stimuli in participants' expertise domain.

Artificial Intelligence and Clinical Decision Support for Radiologists and Referring Providers.

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are providing an opportunity to enhance existing clinical decision support (CDS) tools to improve patient safety and drive value-based imaging. We discuss the advantages and potential applications that may be realized with the synergy between AI and CDS systems. From the perspective of both radiologist and ordering provider, CDS could be significantly empowered using AI. CDS enhanced by AI could reduce friction in radiology workflows and can aid AI developers to identify relevant imaging features their tools should be seeking to extract from images. Furthermore, these systems can generate structured data to be used as input to develop machine learning algorithms, which can drive downstream care pathways. For referring providers, an AI-enabled CDS solution could enable an evolution from existing imaging-centric CDS toward decision support that takes into account a holistic patient perspective. More intelligent CDS could suggest imaging examinations in highly complex clinical scenarios, assist on the identification of appropriate imaging opportunities at the health system level, suggest appropriate individualized screening, or aid health care providers to ensure continuity of care. AI has the potential to enable the next generation of CDS, improving patient care and enhancing providers' and radiologists' experience.

Non-vascular interventional radiology in the paediatric alimentary tract.

Paediatric interventional radiology is an evolving speciality which is able to offer numerous minimally invasive treatments for gastrointestinal tract pathologies. Here we describe interventions performed by paediatric interventional radiologists on the alimentary tract from the mouth to the rectum. The interventions include sclerotherapy, stricture management by dilation, stenting and adjunctive therapies such as Mitomycin C administration and enteral access for feeding, motility assessment and administration of enemas.

Radiology Trainee vs Faculty Radiologist Fluoroscopy Time for Imaging-Guided Procedures: A Retrospective Study of 17,966 Reports Over a 5.5-Year Period.

To evaluate differences in fluoroscopy time (FT) for common vascular access and gastrointestinal procedures performed by radiology trainees vs faculty radiologists. Report information was extracted for all 17,966 index fluoroscopy services performed by trainees or faculty, or both from 2 university hospitals over 66 months. Various vascular access procedures (eg, peripherally inserted central catheters [PICCs] and ports) and gastrointestinal fluoroscopy procedures (eg, upper gastrointestinal and contrast enema studies) were specifically targeted. Statistical analysis was performed. FT was recorded in 17,549 of 17,966 reports (98%) The 1393 procedures performed by nonphysician providers or transitional year interns were excluded. Residents, fellows, and faculty were primary operators in 5066, 6489, and 4601 procedures, respectively. Average FT (in seconds) for resident and fellow services, respectively, was less than that of faculty only for PICCs (75 and 101 vs 148, P < 0.01). For all other procedures, average FT of trainee services was greater than that for faculty. This was statistically significant (P < 0.05) for fellows vs faculty port placement (121 vs 87), resident vs faculty small bowel series (130 vs 96), and both resident and fellow vs faculty esophagram procedures (143 and 183 vs 126 ). FT for residents was significantly less than that for fellows only for PICCs (75 vs 101, P < 0.01). For most, but not all, fluoroscopy procedures commonly performed by radiology trainees, FT is greater than that for procedures performed by faculty radiologists. Better awareness and understanding of such differences may aid training programs in developing benchmarks, protocols, and focused teaching in the safe use of fluoroscopy for patients and operators.

Time Spent by Breast Imaging Radiologists to Perform Value-Added Activities at an Academic Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Health care reform in the United States has generated a paradigm shift in the practice of radiology aimed at increasing the degree of patient-centered care. We conducted a study to quantify the amount of time breast imaging radiologists spend on value-added activities at an academic comprehensive cancer center located in Miami, Florida, and accredited by the American College of Radiology as a Breast Imaging Center of Excellence. METHODS: A prospective, observational study was conducted during a period of 20 consecutive workdays. Three participating breast imaging radiologists maintained a real-time log of each activity performed. A generalized linear model was used to perform a 1-way analysis of variance. An alpha level of .05 was used to determine statistical significance. RESULTS: The average daily time dedicated to these activities was 92.1 minutes (range, 56.4-132.2). The amount of time significantly differed among breast imaging radiologists and correlated with their assigned daily role (P < .001 for both) but was independent of their years of experience. The daily role that required the most time was the interpretation of diagnostic imaging studies, which is when most interactions with patients, their relatives, and referring physicians occurred. The specific activity that required the most time was preparing for and participating in tumor boards. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the breast imaging radiologists who participated in this study dedicated a significant amount of their time to value-added activities to help improve patients' experience across the continuity of their care. We propose that similar studies be conducted at other institutions to better assess the magnitude of this finding across different breast imaging care settings.