Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 20, 2026

Detection of Architectural Distortion in Prior Mammograms via Analysis of Oriented Patterns
Published on: August 30, 2013
The influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community
Louise M Henderson1, Thad Benefield2, Mary W Marsh2
1Department of Radiology, The University of North Carolina, CB 7515, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; Department of Epidemiology, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Rationale And Objectives:
To determine whether the mammographic technologist has an effect on the radiologists' interpretative performance of screening mammography in community practice.
Materials And Methods:
In this institutional review board-approved retrospective cohort study, we included Carolina Mammography Registry data from 372 radiologists and 356 mammographic technologists from 1994 to 2009 who performed 1,003,276 screening mammograms. Measures of interpretative performance (recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV1], and cancer detection rate [CDR]) were ascertained prospectively with cancer outcomes collected from the state cancer registry and pathology reports. To determine if the mammographic technologist influenced the radiologists' performance, we used mixed effects logistic regression models, including a radiologist-specific random effect and taking into account the clustering of examinations across women, separately for screen-film mammography (SFM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
Results:
Of the 356 mammographic technologists included, 343 performed 889,347 SFM examinations, 51 performed 113,929 FFDM examinations, and 38 performed both SFM and FFDM examinations. A total of 4328 cancers were reported for SFM and 564 cancers for FFDM. The technologists had a statistically significant effect on the radiologists' recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, and CDR for both SFM and FFDM (P values <.01). For PPV1, variability by technologist was observed for SFM (P value <.0001) but not for FFDM (P value = .088).
Conclusions:
The interpretative performance of radiologists in screening mammography varies substantially by the technologist performing the examination. Additional studies should aim to identify technologist characteristics that may explain this variation.
Related Concept Videos
Radiological Investigation I: X-ray and CT
Imaging Studies I: CT and MRI
Description of the Procedures
Computed Tomography (CT) scan:
Computed Tomography (CT) scans use X-ray technology to generate detailed images of bones, organs, and tissues. During the scan, the patient lies on a moving table...
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Radiological Investigation II: MRI and Ventilation Perfusion Scan
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Ventilation Perfusion Scans are two radiological investigations that offer detailed diagnostic images of the body, particularly lung structures.
MRI
MRI uses magnetic fields and radiofrequency signals to distinguish between normal and abnormal tissues. This technology provides a more detailed diagnostic image than CT scans, enabling it to characterize pulmonary nodules, stage bronchogenic carcinoma, and evaluate inflammatory activity in...

