" In a society dominated by high-tech medicine, it's big news when computer power fails to make much of a difference. That's the surprising result of the first comprehensive study of a popular technique used in mammograms. It's called computer-aided detection, and it is supposed to improve the interpretation of mammograms by flagging suspicious areas on the breast X-ray for the radiologist to review. But it turns out that it's less accurate than mammograms read the traditional way, by humans."
" The researchers who reported the results in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine say that the new technology is harmful because it finds more suspicious lumps and leads to more biopsies without significantly improving the breast cancer detection rate. But other doctors are less negative, saying the best way to summarize the finding is: The computers aren't helping."
" So what does this mean to most women, who probably don't know whether a computer is assisting their doctor in reading their mammogram? It's another good question to ask the doctor, and a compelling reason to look for a radiology facility with dedicated mammographers, rather than general radiologists who do many other kinds of imaging."
" The danger here is that some women may misread the cautions in such studies and get the impression that mammography isn't worth it."
" On the same day as the study was released, Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, fielded a question about mammography and revealed that she had neglected ... read the whole article
comments:(log in to vote on this article or comment on it)