Radiographers supporting radiologists in the interpretation of screening mammography: a viable strategy to meet the shortage in the number of radiologists

Table 3 Radiographers’ test set performance evaluation after 6 months of training, Mexico 2012

Performance post-training	Median	Interquartile range
Sensitivity ( %)^a	73.3	46.7–86.7
Specificity ( %)^a	50.5	42.1–65.3
False positivies (1 – specificity) ( %)	49.5	34.7–57.9
Appropiate recalls ( %)^b	78.6	78.6–92.9
In appropiate recalls ( %)^c	36.8	25.3–44.2
Positive predictive value ( %)	18.3	16.9–21.3
Negative predictive value ( %)	92.0	88.7–94.3
LR + ^d	1.4	1.3–1.7
AUC^e	0.6	0.6–0.7
Time spent per interpretation^f	115.9	105.2–131.6

^a The biopsy confirmed cancer cases were treated as true positives for evaluation purposes
^bPercent non-cancer appropriate recalls
^cPercent non-appropriate recalls
^dLR+ Likelihood ratio of a positive test = (sensitivity)/(1-specificity)
^eAUC Area under the subject-specific receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve
^fTime in seconds

ISSN: 1471-2407