BlumeStuart, Insight and industry: On the dynamics of technological change in medicine (Cambridge, MA, 1992), 35.
2.
TennerEdward, Why things bite back: Technology and the revenge of unintended consequences (New York, 1996), 347.
3.
KovalevVassiliPetrouMaria, “Texture analysis in three dimensions as a cue to medical diagnosis”, in BankmanIsaac (ed.), Handbook of medical imaging: Processing and analysis (San Diego, 2000), 231.
4.
KopansD. B., “Mammography and the normal breast”, Breast imaging (Baltimore, 2007), chap. 12.
5.
JonesCaroline A.GalisonPeter, Picturing science, producing art (New York, 1998); KempMartin, Seen/unseen: Art, science and intuition from Leonardo to the Hubble telescope (New York, 2006); StaffordBarbara, Echo objects: The cognitive work of images (Chicago, 2007).
6.
SchickoreJutta, The microscope and the eye: A history of reflections 1740–1870 (Chicago, 2007); CambrosioAlbertoKeatingPeter, “Of lymphocytes and pixels: The techno-visual production of cell populations”, Studies in the history and philosophy of the biological and biomedical sciences, xxxi (2000), 2000–70; DolanBrian, “Pedagogy through print: James Sowerby, John Mawe and the problem of colour in early nineteenth century natural history illustration”, The British journal for the history of science, xxxi (1998), 1998–304. The pioneering and now classic volume by Michael Lynch and WoolgarSteve, Representation in scientific practice (Boston, 1990), is a natural starting point in studies of visualization in science.
7.
HackingIan, Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science (Cambridge, 1983); RasmussenNicholas, Picture control: The electron microscope and the transformation of biology in America 1940–1960 (Palo Alto, 1999); DastonLorraineGalisonPeter, Objectivity (New York, 2007).
8.
WarwickAndrew, “X-rays as evidence in German orthopedic surgery 1895–1900”, Isis, xcvi (2005), 1–24; PasveerBernike, “Depiction in medicine as a two-way affair: X-ray pictures and pulmonary tuberculosis in the early twentieth century”, in LöwyIlana (ed.), Medical change: Historical and sociological studies of medical innovation (Paris, 1993), 85–104.
9.
HofmannBjorn, “The technological invention of disease”, Journal of medical ethics, xxvii (2001), 10–19.
10.
AronowitzRobert, Unnatural history: Breast cancer and American society (Cambridge, 2007) provides a further historical context for attitudes toward breast cancer screening and treatment, but does not refer at all to debates about computer-aided diagnosis in mammography.
11.
LernerBarron, The breast cancer wars: Fear, hope, and the pursuit of a cure in twentieth-century America (Oxford, 2001); Aronowitz, Unnatural history (ref. 10).
12.
American Cancer Society, “Proceedings of the workshop on cost of screening mammography”, Cancer, lx (1987), 1669–702.
13.
MonseesBarbara, “Screening mammography: Who will meet the need?”, Radiology, clxxxiv (1992), 30–31.
14.
SingletonVickyMichaelMike, “Actor-networks and ambivalence: General practitioners in the UK Cervical Screening Programme”, Social studies of science, xxiii (1993), 227–64; ClarkeAdeleCasperMonica, “From simple technology to complex arena: Classification of pap smears, 1917–90”, Medical anthropology quarterly, x (1996), 1996–23.
15.
Monsees, “Screening mammography” (ref. 13), 31.
16.
Lerner, Breast cancer wars (ref. 11); Aronowitz, Unnatural history (ref. 10); WelchH. Gilbert, Should I be tested for cancer (Berkeley, 2004), for wider discussion of early-detection techniques in cancer screening.
17.
A few works worth mentioning here provide relevant theoretical discussions that frame ways that ‘calculation’ is developed in science and technology studies to address apparent limitations of human expertise and establish better standards and protocols of practice: MatthewsJ. Rosser, Quantification and the quest for medical certainty (Princeton, 1995); HowellJoel, Technology in the hospital: Transforming patient care in the early twentieth century (Baltimore, 1995); ReiserStanley, Medicine and the reign of technology (Cambridge, 1978).
18.
HallFerris, “Screening mammography: Potential problems on the horizon”, New England journal of medicine, cxxxiv (1986), 53–55.
19.
CollinsHenry, Artificial experts: Social knowledge and intelligent systems (Cambridge, MA, 1990); KiddA.WelbankM., “Knowledge acquisition”, in FoxJ. (ed.), Expert systems ‘State of the Art’ report (Oxford, 1984), 71–80.
20.
JorlandGerardOppinelAnnickWeiszGeorge, Body counts: Medical quantification in historical and sociological perspective (Montreal, 2005); KeatingPeterCambrosioAlberto, Biomedical platforms: Realigning the normal and the pathological in late twentieth-century medicine (Cambridge, MA, 2003); MarksHarry, The progress of experiment: Science and therapeutic reform in the United States, 1900–1990 (Cambridge, 1997).
21.
BergMarc, Rationalizing medical work: Decision support techniques and medical practices (Cambridge, MA, 1997).
22.
Berg, Rationalizing medical work (ref. 21), 27.
23.
Berg, Rationalizing medical work (ref. 21), 30.
24.
Berg, Rationalizing medical work (ref. 21), 37. Other conceptualizations of medicine as individual craft versus standardized science are in Warwick Anderson, “The reasoning of the strongest: The polemics of skill and science in medical diagnosis”, Social studies of science, xxii (1992), 653–84.
25.
DastonLorraineGalisonPeter, “The image of objectivity”, Representations, xl (1992), 81–128; GalisonPeter, “Judgment against objectivity”, in JonesCarolineGalisonPeter (eds), Picturing science, producing art (New York, 1998), 327–59.
26.
DastonGalison, “Image of objectivity” (ref. 25), 110.
27.
DastonGalison, “Image of objectivity” (ref. 25), 118.
28.
Galison, “Judgment against objectivity” (ref. 25), 338.
29.
Berg, Rationalizing medical work (ref. 21).
30.
KrupinskiElizabeth, “The future of image perception in radiology: Synergy between humans and computers”, Academic radiology, x (2003), 1–3, p. 1.
31.
deGrootA. D., “Perception and memory versus thought”, in KleinmuntzB. (ed.), Problem solving research, methods and theory (New York, 1966), 19–50.
32.
ChaseW. G.SimonH. A., “Perception in chess”, Cognitive psychology, iv (1973), 55–81.
33.
EricssonAndersSmithJacqui, Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (Cambridge, 1991).
34.
EricssonAnders, “How experts attain and maintain superior performance: Implications for the enhancement of skilled performance in older individuals”, Journal of aging and physical activity, viii (2000), 346–52.
35.
Ericsson, op. cit. (ref. 34).
36.
NodineC. F.KrupinskiE. A., “Perceptual skill, radiology expertise and visual test performance with Nina and Waldo”, Academic radiology, v (1998), 603–12.
37.
For an example of a current study investigating expert visualization, see KrupinskiE.TillackA.RichterL.HendersonJ.BhattacharyyaA.ScottK.GrahamA.DescourM.DavisJ.WeinsteinR., “Eye movement study and human performance using telepathology virtual slides: Implications for education and differences with experience”, Human pathology, xxxvii (2006), 1543–56.
38.
LesgoldAlan, Harriet Rubinson, Paul Feltovich, Robert Glaser, Dale Klopfer, and Yen Wang, “Expertise in a complex skill: Diagnosing X-ray pictures”, in ChiMicheleneGlaserRobertFarrM. J. (eds), The nature of expertise (Hillsdale, NJ, 1988), 311–42.
39.
Lesgold, “Expertise in a complex skill” (ref. 38), 329.
40.
Lesgold, “Expertise in a complex skill” (ref. 38), 319.
41.
Lesgold, “Expertise in a complex skill” (ref. 38), 337.
42.
Lesgold, “Expertise in a complex skill” (ref. 38), 340.
43.
Lesgold, “Expertise in a complex skill” (ref. 38), 319.
44.
BassettLawrenceManjikianVikenGoldRichard, “Mammography and breast cancer screening”, Surgical clinics of North America, lxx (1990), 775–800; FeigS. A.ShaberG. D.PatchefskyA., “Analysis of clinically occult and mammographically occult breast tumors”, American journal of roentgenology, cxxviii (1977), 403.
45.
BassettLawrence, “Clinical image evaluation”, Radiologic clinics of North America, xxxiii (1995), 1027–39, p. 1032.
46.
StraxPhilip, “The role of the radiologist in mammography screening”, Cancer, lx (1987), 1675–7, p. 1675.
47.
Americal College of Radiology, Mammography control manual (Reston, VA, 1990); Bassett, “Clinical image evaluation” (ref. 45), 1033.
48.
Strax, “The role of the radiologist” (ref. 46), 1675.
49.
BarleyStephenBechkyBeth, “In the backrooms of science: The work of technicians in science labs”, Work and occupations, xxi (1994), 85–126; LarkinG. V., “Medical dominance and control: Radiographers in the division of labor”, Sociological review, xxvi (1978), 1978–58; OrrJulian, Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job (Ithaca, 1996); SuchmanLucy, “Making work visible”, Communications of the ACM, xxxviii (1995), 1995–68; SuchmanLucy, Human-machine reconfigurations (Cambridge, 2007).
50.
HounFlorenceFrankeKathleenElliottMariaFinderCharlesBurkhartRogerFischerRuth, “The Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992: History and process”, Food and drug law journal, 1 (1995), 485–92.
51.
ChanH. P.DoiKunioVybornyC. J.SchmidtR. A.MetzC.LamK. L.OguraT.WuY.MacMahonG., “Improvement in radiologists' detection of clustered microcalcifications on mammograms: The potential of computer-aided diagnosis”, Investigative radiology, xxv (1995), 1105–10.
52.
Quoted in ClarkeCasper, “From simple technology” (ref. 14), 607.
53.
Chan, “Improvement in radiologists' detection” (ref. 51), 1109.
54.
ElmoreJ. G.WellsC. K.LeeC. H.HowardD. H.FeinsteinA. R., “Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms”, New England journal of medicine, cccxxxi (1994), 1493–9.
55.
Elmore, “Variability in radiologists' interpretations” (ref. 54), 1493.
56.
LinverM. N.PasterS. B.RosenbergR. D.KeyC. R.StidleyC. A.KingW. V., “Improvement in mammography interpretation skills in a community radiology practice after dedicated teaching courses: 2-year medical audit of 38,633 cases”, Radiology, clxxxiv (1992), 39–43.
57.
ChanHeang-PingDoiKunioGalhotraSimranjitVybornyCarlMacMahonHeberJokichPeter, “Image feature analysis and computer-aided diagnosis in digital radiography: 1: Automated detection of microcalcifications in mammography”, Medical physics, xiv (1987), 538–48, p. 538.
58.
Chan, “Image feature analysis” (ref. 57), 539.
59.
Chan, “Image feature analysis” (ref. 57), 540.
60.
VybornyCarlGigerMaryellen, “Computer vision and artificial intelligence in mammography”, American journal of roentgenology, clxii (1994), 699–708, p. 701.
61.
KulikowskiCasimir, “Artificial intelligence methods and systems for medical consultation”, IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, ii (1980), 464–76, p. 465.
62.
KomaroffAnthony, “Algorithms and the ‘art’ of medicine”, American journal of public health, lxxii (1982), 10–13, p. 10.
63.
ShortliffeEdwardBuchananBruceFeigenbaumEdward, “Knowledge engineering for medical decision making: A review of computer-aided clinical decision aids”, Proceedings of the IEEE, lxvii (1979), 1207–24.
64.
AsadaN.DoiK.MacMahonH., “Potential usefulness of an artificial neural network for differential diagnosis of interstitial lung disease: Pilot study”, Radiology, clxxvii (1990), 857–60, p. 857.
65.
Asada, “Usefulness of an artificial neural network” (ref. 64), 860.
66.
WuY.DoiK.GigerM. L.HishikawaR. M., “Computerized detection of clustered microcalcifications in digital mammograms: Applications of artificial neural networks”, Medical physics, xix (1992), 555–60; WuY.GigerM. L.DoiK.VybornyC. J.SchmidtR. A.MetzC. E., “Artificial neural networks in mammography: Application to decision making in the diagnosis of breast cancer”, Radiology, clxxxvii (1993), 1993–87.
67.
Wu, “Artificial neural networks in mammography” (ref. 66), 86.
68.
TaylorP.HajnalS.DilhuydyM. H.BarreauB., “Measuring image texture to separate ‘difficult’ from ‘easy’ mammograms”, The British journal of radiology, lxvii (1994), 456–63, emphasis added.
69.
DreyfusH. L.DreyfusS. E., “Peripheral vision”, Organization studies, xxvi (2005), 779–92.
70.
FeigenbaumEdwardMcCorduckPamela, The fifth generation: Artificial intelligence and Japan's computer challenge to the world (Lebanon, IN, 1983), 64.
Krupinski, “The future of image perception” (ref. 30), 2.
73.
Krupinski, “The future of image perception” (ref. 30), 2.
74.
KrupinskiElizabeth, “Response”, Radiology, xi (2004), 616.
75.
Taylor, “Measuring image texture” (ref. 68).
76.
For similar research on “easy” and “difficult” classification in Britain, see also CrossSimonDownsJosephDreszetPierreMaZ.HarrisonRobert, “Intelligent decision support systems in the cytodiagnosis of breast carcinoma”, in LisboaPauloIfeachorEmmanuelSzczepaniakPiotr (eds), Artificial neural networks in biomedicine (London, 2000).
77.
JiangY.NishikawaR. M.SchmidtR. A.MetzC. E.GigerM. L.DoiK., “Improving breast cancer diagnosis with computer aided diagnosis”, Academic radiology, vi (1999), 22–23.
DreyfusH. L.DreyfusS. E., Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer (New York, 1986).
80.
Strax, “The role of the radiologist” (ref. 46), 1675.
81.
DoddsS. R., “Neural networks”, Lancet, cccxlvi (1995), 1500.
82.
WyattJeremy, “Nervous about artificial neural networks?”, Lancet, ccxlvi (1995), 1175–6, p. 1176.
83.
VybornyGiger, “Computer vision” (ref. 60), 705.
84.
NishikawaR. M.SchmidtR. A.PapaioannouJ.OsnisR.HaldemannR. A.HeuslerM. L.GigerD. E.WolvertonC.ComstockC.DoiK., “Performance of a prototype clinical ‘intelligent’ mammography workstation”, in DoiK.GigerM. L.NishikawaR. M.SchmidtR. A. (eds), Digital mammography 1996 (Amsterdam, 1996), 93–96; MugglestoneM. D.LomazR.GaleA. G.WilsonA. R. M., “The effect of prompting mammographic abnormalities on the human observer”, ibid., 87–93.
85.
BlumeStuart, Insight and industry: On the dynamics of technological change in medicine (Cambridge, MA, 1992), 35.
AlberdiE.PovyakaloA. A.StriginiL.AytonP.HartswoodM.ProctorR.SlackR., “Use of computer-aided detection (CAD) tools in screening mammography: A multidisciplinary investigation”, The British journal of radiology, lxxviii (2005), S31–S40.
89.
Wyatt, “Nervous” (ref. 82), 1177.
90.
DybowskiRichardGantVanya, “Artificial neural networks in pathology and medical laboratories”, Lancet, cccxlvi (1995), 1203–7, p. 1203.
91.
TarassenkoLionel, “English as she is wrote”, Lancet, cccxlvi (1995), 1712.