The Role of the Expert Witness in Radiology: Challenges and Strategies for Overcoming Them

Investigating the impact of cognitive biases in radiologists' image interpretation: A scoping review

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE

Image interpretation is a fundamental aspect of radiology. The treatment and management of patients relies on accurate and timely imaging diagnosis. However, errors in radiological reports can negatively impact on patient health outcomes. These misdiagnoses can be caused by several different errors, but cognitive biases account for 74 % of all image interpretation errors. There are many biases that can impact on a radiologist's perception and cognitive processes. Several recent narrative reviews have discussed these cognitive biases and have offered possible strategies to mitigate their effects. However, these strategies remain untested. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review is to evaluate the current knowledge on the extent that cognitive biases impact on medical image interpretation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Scopus and Medline Databases were searched using relevant keywords to identify papers published between 2012 and 2022. A subsequent hand search of the narrative reviews was also performed. All studies collected were screened and assessed against the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Twenty-four publications were included and categorised into five main themes: satisfaction of search, availability bias, hindsight bias, framing bias and other biases. From these studies, there were mixed results regarding the impact of cognitive biases, highlighting the need for further investigation in this area. Moreover, the limited and untested debiasing methods offered by a minority of the publications and narrative reviews also suggests the need for further research. The potential of role of artificial intelligence is also highlighted to further assist radiologists in identifying and mitigating these cognitive biases.

CONCLUSION

Cognitive biases can impact radiologists' image interpretation, however the effectiveness of debiasing strategies remain largely untested.

Mandating Limits on Workload, Duty, and Speed in Radiology

Research has not yet quantified the effects of workload or duty hours on the accuracy of radiologists. With the exception of a brief reduction in imaging studies during the 2020 peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the workload of radiologists in the United States has seen relentless growth in recent years. One concern is that this increased demand could lead to reduced accuracy. Behavioral studies in species ranging from insects to humans have shown that decision speed is inversely correlated to decision accuracy. A potential solution is to institute workload and duty limits to optimize radiologist performance and patient safety. The concern, however, is that any prescribed mandated limits would be arbitrary and thus no more advantageous than allowing radiologists to self-regulate. Specific studies have been proposed to determine whether limits reduce error, and if so, to provide a principled basis for such limits. This could determine the precise susceptibility of individual radiologists to medical error as a function of speed during image viewing, the maximum number of studies that could be read during a work shift, and the appropriate shift duration as a function of time of day. Before principled recommendations for restrictions are made, however, it is important to understand how radiologists function both optimally and at the margins of adequate performance. This study examines the relationship between interpretation speed and error rates in radiology, the potential influence of artificial intelligence on reading speed and error rates, and the possible outcomes of imposed limits on both caseload and duty hours. This review concludes that the scientific evidence needed to make meaningful rules is lacking and notes that regulating workloads without scientific principles can be more harmful than not regulating at all.