Improving Medical Image Decision-Making by Leveraging Metacognitive Processes and Representational Similarity
- PMID: 34865303
- DOI: 10.1111/tops.12588
Improving Medical Image Decision-Making by Leveraging Metacognitive Processes and Representational Similarity
Abstract
Improving the accuracy of medical image interpretation can improve the diagnosis of numerous diseases. We compared different approaches to aggregating repeated decisions about medical images to improve the accuracy of a single decision maker. We tested our algorithms on data from both novices (undergraduates) and experts (medical professionals). Participants viewed images of white blood cells and made decisions about whether the cells were cancerous or not. Each image was shown twice to the participants and their corresponding confidence judgments were collected. The maximum confidence slating (MCS) algorithm leverages metacognitive abilities to consider the more confident response in the pair of responses as the more accurate "final response" (Koriat, 2012), and it has previously been shown to improve accuracy on our task for both novices and experts (Hasan et al., 2021). We compared MCS to similarity-based aggregation (SBA) algorithms where the responses made by the same participant on similar images are pooled together to generate the "final response." We determined similarity by using two different neural networks where one of the networks had been trained on white blood cells and the other had not. We show that SBA improves performance for novices even when the neural network had no specific training on white blood cell images. Using an informative representation (i.e., network trained on white blood cells) allowed one to aggregate over more neighbors and further boosted the performance of novices. However, SBA failed to improve the performance for experts even with the informative representation. This difference in efficacy of the SBA suggests different decision mechanisms for novices and experts.
Keywords: Computational modeling; Expertise; Medical image decision-making; Metacognition; Neural networks; Representation; Wisdom of the crowds.
© 2021 Cognitive Science Society LLC.
Similar articles
-
Wisdom of crowds and collective decision-making in a survival situation with complex information integration.Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2020 Oct 15;5(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s41235-020-00248-z. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2020. PMID: 33057843 Free PMC article.
-
Domain-specific and domain-general processes underlying metacognitive judgments.Conscious Cogn. 2017 Mar;49:264-277. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2017.01.011. Epub 2017 Mar 8. Conscious Cogn. 2017. PMID: 28222381
-
Neural correlates of metacognitive ability and of feeling confident: a large-scale fMRI study.Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2016 Dec;11(12):1942-1951. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsw093. Epub 2016 Jul 21. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2016. PMID: 27445213 Free PMC article.
-
Sources of Metacognitive Inefficiency.Trends Cogn Sci. 2021 Jan;25(1):12-23. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.10.007. Epub 2020 Nov 16. Trends Cogn Sci. 2021. PMID: 33214066 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Visual Confidence.Annu Rev Vis Sci. 2016 Oct 14;2:459-481. doi: 10.1146/annurev-vision-111815-114630. Epub 2016 Aug 3. Annu Rev Vis Sci. 2016. PMID: 28532359 Review.
Cited by
-
Blinding to Circumvent Human Biases: Deliberate Ignorance in Humans, Institutions, and Machines.Perspect Psychol Sci. 2024 Sep;19(5):849-859. doi: 10.1177/17456916231188052. Epub 2023 Sep 5. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2024. PMID: 37669014 Free PMC article.
-
How experts' own inconsistency relates to their confidence and between-expert disagreement.Sci Rep. 2022 Jun 3;12(1):9273. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-12847-5. Sci Rep. 2022. PMID: 35660761 Free PMC article.
-
Comparing perceptual judgments in large multimodal models and humans.Behav Res Methods. 2025 Jun 19;57(7):203. doi: 10.3758/s13428-025-02728-w. Behav Res Methods. 2025. PMID: 40536604 Free PMC article.
-
Boosting wisdom of the crowd for medical image annotation using training performance and task features.Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2024 May 20;9(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s41235-024-00558-6. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2024. PMID: 38763994 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Boldt, A., Schiffer, A. -M., Waszak, F., & Yeung, N. (2019). Confidence predictions affect performance confidence and neural preparation in perceptual decision making. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1-17.
-
- Elmore, J. G., Nelson, H. D., Pepe, M. S., Longton, G. M., Tosteson, A. N., Geller, B., … Weaver, D. L. (2016). Variability in pathologists' interpretations of individual breast biopsy slides: A population perspective. Annals of Internal Medicine, 164(10), 649-655.
-
- Fleming, S. M., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2012). Metacognition: Computation, biology and function. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367, 1280-1286.
-
- Griffin, D., & Brenner, L. (2004). Perspectives on probability judgment calibration. In D.J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 177-199). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
-
- Griffin, D., & Tversky, A. (1992). The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence. Cognitive Psychology, 24(3), 411-435.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
