CAD Found Problematic, HMMM??
I wasn’t at all surprised by the report in the New England Journal of Medicine that Computer Aided Detection is creating a lot of follow-up biopsies that are negative. The AP report started with the line “it appears that traditional mammography readers” (I believe they meant human physicians) were more accuarate……
Of course the supporters of CAD, most likely the manufacturers, jumped on the story to defend the technology.
It has been my opinion for a long time that we jumped into all of this technology too fast. It was pushed by the companies.
I must agree that manufacturers are pushing the direction of of this profession more than any professional society. They want something out there - but from the on site inservice I have seen for CR/ DR…they push the equipment without even knowing the principles of exposure…how can a company do that-it seems that NCDRH should take a closer look at the newer technologies and how they are being presented to the professional community. WE have to operate them and WE have to monitor patient exposure. It is not right when the application specialist tells the staff, “just go up 3-4 times the mas you are using now”…to solve S# problems rather than have them recalibrate the system to meet the current techniques.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:46 pm