Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 601

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Variability in Radiologists' Interpretations of Mammograms

Open access
Elmore, Joann G., Wells, Carolyn K., Lee, Carol H., Howard, Debra H., Feinstein, Alvan R.·1994·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite the proved value of mammography in screening for breast cancer, its efficacy depends on radiologists' interpretations. The variability in such interpretations is not well understood. METHODS: Using a technique of stratified random sampling, we selected 150 mammograms obtained in 1987: 27 from women with histopathologically confirmed breast cancer and 123 from women with no evidence of breast cancer after three years of follow-up examinations. Ten radiologists, who were unaware of the diagnoses and research hypothesis, each interpreted the 150 mammograms. Disagreement was analyzed within pairs of the 10 radiologists, as well as for the group of 150 women as a whole. RESULTS: The diagnostic consistency between pairs of radiologists was moderate, with a median weighted percentage of agreement of 78 percent (weighted kappa, 0.47). The frequency of the radiologists' recommendations for an immediate workup ranged from 74 to 96 percent for mammograms from the women with cancer and from 11 to 65 percent for films from the women without cancer. A substantial disagreement in management recommendations--in which one radiologist recommended routine follow-up and another recommended a biopsy for the same patient--occurred in 3 percent of the pairwise comparisons but in 25 percent of the comparisons for the group of women as a whole. When two or more radiologists recommended a biopsy for the same patient, a disagreement in the stated location (right or left breast) occurred in 2 percent of the pairwise comparisons among the radiologists but in 9 percent of comparisons for the group of women as a whole. Because some disagreement was likely, given that 10 radiologists read each film, the pairwise comparison is a more conservative estimate of disagreement. CONCLUSIONS: Although mammography is of value in screening women for breast cancer, radiologists can differ, sometimes substantially, in their interpretations of mammograms and in their recommendations for management. Efforts to improve accuracy and reduce variability in interpretation may increase the effectiveness of mammography in detecting early breast cancers.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm199412013312206

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 601

Metadata

Authors
Elmore, J. G., Wells, C. K., Lee, C. H., Howard, D. H., & Feinstein, A. R.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1994-12
Volume
331
Issue
22
Pages
1493-1499
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2010120422
Cited by
601
References
3
FWCI
18.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Variability in Radiologists' Interpretations of Mammograms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199412013312206
The paper
Elmore, J. G., Wells, C. K., Lee, C. H., Howard, D. H., & Feinstein, A. R. (1994). Variability in Radiologists' Interpretations of Mammograms. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199412013312206

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.