Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Clin Imaging. 2016 Jul 1;40(6):1096–1103. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2016.06.014

Table 4.

Radiologist characteristics by categories of screening and diagnostic specificity.1

Low to average performance in screening or diagnostic performance Top performers
Adjusted Screening Performance: Low to Average High Low to Average High P value comparing highest performers to all others combined
Adjusted Diagnostic Performance: Low to Average Low to Average High High
N=90 N=31 N=37 N=37
Gender, n (%) 0.047
    Female 34 (37.8%) 7 (22.6%) 12 (32.4%) 6 (16.2%)
    Male 56 (62.2%) 24 (77.4%) 25 (67.6%) 31 (83.8%)
Age group, n (%) 0.144
    32 – 44 26 (28.9%) 4 (12.9%) 11 (29.7%) 6 (16.2%)
    45 – 54 36 (40%) 10 (32.3%) 14 (37.8%) 11 (29.7%)
    55 or older 28 (31.1%) 17 (54.8%) 12 (32.4%) 20 (54.1%)
Academic Medical Center Affiliation, n (%) 0.325
    None 73 (82%) 28 (90.3%) 30 (83.3%) 30 (83.3%)
    Adjunct 5 (5.62%) 0 (0%) 3 (8.33%) 4 (11.1%)
    Primary 11 (12.4%) 3 (9.68%) 3 (8.33%) 2 (5.56%)
Fellowship training, n (%) 0.311
    Not-fellowship trained 81 (90%) 29 (93.5%) 34 (91.9%) 36 (97.3%)
    Fellowship trained 9 (10%) 2 (6.45%) 3 (8.11%) 1 (2.7%)
Years of mammography experience, n (%) 0.106
    0 – 9 28 (31.1%) 5 (16.1%) 11 (31.4%) 5 (13.9%)
    10 – 19 32 (35.6%) 8 (25.8%) 12 (34.3%) 11 (30.6%)
    20 or more 30 (33.3%) 18 (58.1%) 12 (34.3%) 20 (55.6%)
Percent of time spent in breast imaging, n (%) 0.124
    0 – 19% 19 (21.8%) 6 (19.4%) 12 (32.4%) 9 (27.3%)
    20 – 39% 23 (26.4%) 8 (25.8%) 8 (21.6%) 14 (42.4%)
    40 – 79% 15 (17.2%) 4 (12.9%) 8 (21.6%) 2 (6.06%)
    80 – 100% 30 (34.5%) 13 (41.9%) 9 (24.3%) 8 (24.2%)
Hours per week spent in breast imaging, n (%) 0.432
    0 – 8 16 (18.8%) 4 (13.3%) 13 (35.1%) 10 (30.3%)
    9 – 16 27 (31.8%) 11 (36.7%) 13 (35.1%) 12 (36.4%)
    17 – 32 17 (20%) 5 (16.7%) 4 (10.8%) 6 (18.2%)
    33 or more 25 (29.4%) 10 (33.3%) 7 (18.9%) 5 (15.2%)
1

Percentages shown correspond to non-missing observations. P-values compare the 37 top performers (4th column) to the 158 others combined (columns 1-3) using Fisher's Exact Test. Low, Average, and High performance categories were assigned relative to the 33rd and 67th tertiles of the distribution of radiologist-specific random effects for screening specificity (−0.324, 0.210) and diagnostic specificity (−0.192, 0.183). Missing data on survey questions: Academic medical center affiliation n=3; Years of mammography experience n=3; Percentage of time spent in breast imaging n=7; Hours per week spent in breast imaging n=10.