Gender Disparity in Chest Radiology in North America

PurposeIn the current cultural climate, gender disparity is a topical and contentious issue. In academic medicine, there is an underrepresentation of female faculty in leadership positions with lower research output and fewer grant awards. We study the gender differences in faculty rank, leadership positions, and research output among chest radiologists in North America.Materials and MethodsA list of clinical faculty at radiology programs in North America was obtained using the FREIDA database and program websites. Demographic information and data pertaining to academic rank, peer-reviewed publications, and research productivity of each chest radiologist was obtained from Doximity and SCOPUS databases.ResultsFour hundred ten (281 male:129 female) academic chest radiologists were included. Females were underrepresented at senior faculty level accounting for 18.8% (n = 21) of full, 29.2% (n = 21) of associate and 40.7% (n = 61) of assistant professors. 23.1% (n = 14) of department chiefs were women. Women were more likely to occupy a faculty position in chest radiology in Canada than in US (P < 0.05). The median H-index, and numbers of publications and citations were lower for females than male faculty (P < 0.05). Male faculty had more years of experience – median of 19 years, 16.5 years for females (P < 0.05).ConclusionsGender disparity exists in chest radiology with similar male predominance in terms of senior faculty rank, leadership roles, and research productivity to other medical specialties. The observed deficiency of research and scholarly output among female chest radiologists and the paucity of aspirational female radiologists in senior academic/leadership positions are factors which perpetuate this gender disparity and contribute to persistence of the gender pay gap.     

Gender Disparity in Radiology Society Committees and Leadership in North America and Comparison With Other Continents

PurposeTo evaluate gender distribution in radiology professional society leadership positions. Our study intends to assess and compare the gender distribution among leadership roles and professional society committee memberships of the radiology societies and seek an understanding of potential associations between gender, academic research metrics, institutional academic rank, and leadership roles.MethodsWe identified radiology professional society committee members to assess relative gender composition in 28 radiology societies in North America, Europe, and Australia/New Zealand. The research metrics were obtained from the SCOPUS database and demographics and institutional affiliation through institutional websites' internet searches. Gender distribution by academic ranks and other discontinuous variables were analyzed using the Chi-Square test. Wallis tests.ResultsOf the 3011 members of society committees, 67.9% were male, and 32.1% female. Among all the society members, the data showed that the proportion of committee members holding leadership positions was comparable between males (25.7%) and females (22.5%). However, when we did a subgroup analysis and disaggregated the data by leadership positions, we noted that among those who held the leadership positions, the proportion of males was more significant (n = 526, 70.7%) compared to females (n = 218, 29.3%). Overall, males had higher median publications, citations, H-indices, and active years of research (P< 0.0001). At all university academic ranks, men outnumbered females (P = 0.0015, Chi-square 15.38), with the most considerable disparity at the rank of professor (71.9% male, 28.1% female, P = 0.0003).ConclusionThere was male predominance amongst committee members in radiology societies. Our study found no significant differences between those in leadership positions, suggesting that once a member of a committee, females are equally likely as males to attain leadership positions. Analysis of committee members' academic rank and committee leaders demonstrated underrepresentation of females at higher academic ranks, and males overall had higher research metrics than females.     

Trends in Gender and Racial Profiles of US Academic Radiology Faculty

ObjectiveTo evaluate gender and racial profiles of US academic radiology faculty.Materials and MethodsThis is a retrospective analysis of the American Association of Medical College database of radiology faculty members from 2006 to 2017 by academic rank, chair position, race or ethnicity, and gender. The data were described with annual proportions and average annual counts and fit to a Poisson regression model. Comparison data were taken from American Association of Medical College on matriculants at US medical schools and from ACGME on radiology residents.ResultsWomen increased significantly in the ranks of professor by 4.5%, associate professor by 4.8%, and assistant professor by 4.8% (P < .05). Asian and multiple race non-Hispanic radiologists increased in the rank of professor by 5.9% and 3.1%, respectively (P < .05). Among department chairs, only women and Asian faculty increased by 6.4% and 7.5%, respectively (P < .05). The proportion of women chairs increased from 10.0% (19 of 191) in 2006 to 17.4% (39 of 224) in 2017. Black and Hispanic chairs collectively represented less than 10% of the total chairs every year.DiscussionThe significant percent annual increase in women faculty in academic ranks and chair positions suggests that the radiology faculty is becoming more diverse. However, the decreasing proportion of women with increasing academic ranks within each year of the study period suggests attrition or lack of promotion of women radiology faculty. The disparity in black and Hispanic faculty members and chairs suggests that emphasis should continue to be placed on tailored recruitment.     

Analysis of Gender Disparity in US and Canadian Radiology Residency Programs

BackgroundEquity, diversity, and inclusion in academic radiology are a work in progress and although the gender gap has decreased, there remains a paucity of studies examining female representation among radiology trainees over the past decade.ObjectiveThe aim of our undertaking was to evaluate gender parity in United States (US) and Canadian radiology residency programs and to suggest future directions to improve female representationMaterials and MethodsRetrospective analysis of publicly available data on radiology residents from the US and Canada was performed from 2007to 2019. Data on diagnostic radiology residents was collected from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education for the US and the Canadian Post M.D. Education Registry for Canada. Statistical tests including regression and ANOVA were used to study the gender proportions from 2007to 2019.ResultsThere has been little progress in bridging the gender gap in the last 12 years. The proportion of female residents pursuing radiology has remained at an average of 26.74% (n = 1,238of 4,629) in US programs and 31.78% (n = 28 of88) in Canadian programs. The average change in the percentage of female residents was 0.0% per year (P = 0.0) for US programs and -2.9% per year (P = 0.3) for Canadian programs.DiscussionDespite a higher proportion of females in North American medical schools, gender disparity persists among radiology residents. More research is needed to identify barriers limiting female representation and improve gender parity across North American radiology programs.     

Career Research Performance Among Radiology Early Career Grant Recipients Compared With National Institutes of Health K Award Recipients

ObjectiveTo compare academic and demographic metrics among recipients of three major early career radiology, interventional radiology, and radiation oncology grants to National Institutes of Health (NIH) K awardees at the time the grants were awarded and then over the course of their careers.MethodsRadiologists who received the RSNA Research Scholar Grant, General Electric Radiology Research Academic Fellowship (GERRAF), American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS) Scholar Award, or NIH Career Development (K) Award before January 1, 2015, were included. Research metrics at the time of grant award (eg, publications) and subsequent scholarly productivity (eg, academic rank, h-index, NIH funding) were recorded until April 2020. Wilcoxon ranked-sum, χ², logistic regression, and standard least-square regression were used for data analysis.ResultsThere were 279 recipients: 48 K Award, 115 RSNA Research Scholar Grant, 36 ARRS, and 80 GERRAF. At the time of grant awarding, GERRAF recipients were less likely to have an MD-PhD degree (odds ratio [OR]: 0.36; P = .002) and were more likely to be women (OR: 1.55; P = .042) than K Award recipients. Similarly, recipients of the ARRS (OR: 2.87; P = .010) and GERRAF (OR: 3.19; P = .002) were more likely to have a master’s degree. Academic rank, leadership positions, and R01 funding were significant predictors of h-index and total publications over time. Academic rank and the GERRAF were significant predictors of subsequent NIH funding duration but there were no significant predictors of NIH funding amount.ConclusionsEarly career radiology awards, specifically the GERRAF, provide support for female and non-PhD investigators and result in comparable academic performance metrics to NIH K Award recipients.     

Wellness Program Implementation in an Academic Radiology Department: Determination of Need,Organizational Buy-in,and Outcomes

ObjectiveTo implement a multifaceted wellness program in an academic radiology department to prevent burnout and to assess initial outcomes with special focus on the challenges related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.MethodsA wellness program was established to address institutional and personal factors of burnout. The program focused on interventions to improve efficiency of practice, provide personal and career support, and create a culture of wellness. The components of the program were designed with input from radiology faculty, and the program was financially supported by the hospital’s physician organization. A survey was performed 6 months after the initiation of the program to determine radiologist engagement and satisfaction. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a new survey was administered to identify needs of faculty and adjust initiatives. This study was exempt from institutional review board approval.ResultsThe majority of radiologists (79%) agreed or strongly agreed that the wellness program provided opportunities to connect with coworkers. All radiologists agreed that the program was helpful and should be continued. During the COVID-19 pandemic, 49% of physicians requested initiatives focused on well-being, emotional health, and mindfulness to support them during the crisis.ConclusionsThe implementation of a faculty wellness program in an academic radiology department addressed institutional and personal factors of burnout, allowed faculty to connect with coworkers, and was found to be helpful by all radiologists. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted needs to well-being and emotional health initiatives. Follow-up data are necessary to assess its effect on burnout reduction.     

Trainee and Faculty Perceptions of Remote PACS Workstations and Next Steps in a Large US Academic Medical Institution

ObjectiveRemote workstations were rapidly deployed in our academic radiology practice in late March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although well-received by faculty, there were concerns for the impact on resident education.Materials and MethodsSurveys of the radiology trainees and faculty were conducted online seven- and thirteen-months following workstation deployment as a part of a quality improvement project to assess the impact on radiology education and faculty wellness, as well as assess the desired trajectory of remote work in an academic setting.ResultsThe majority of trainees (52%) reported the implementation had negatively impacted resident education, greatest among lower level residents (p < .001). This perception did not change despite interventions and perceived improvement in teleconferencing.Greater than 75% of radiologists with remote workstations reported improved wellness and lower stress levels compared to the onsite radiologists. The majority of all respondents voted to continue or expand remote work following the COVID-19 pandemic in both surveys.ConclusionsOnsite teaching is important for the education of residents, particularly for lower-level residents. However, the adoption of a hybrid model in an academic setting may prove beneficial for faculty wellness and recruitment of the next generation.     

The association of departmental leadership gender with that of faculty and residents in radiology

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Although the number of women graduating from medical school continues to increase, their representation in radiology residency programs has not increased over the past 10 years. We examined whether the gender of radiology faculty and residents differed according to the gender of the departmental leadership. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We issued an anonymous Web-based survey via e-mail to all 188 radiology residency program directors listed in the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA Online). Data regarding the gender of the department chairperson, residency program director, faculty, and residents were collected. The institutional review board granted a waiver for this study, and all subjects provided informed consent. RESULTS: Of the 84 program directors who responded, 9 (10.7%) were chaired by females and 75 (89.3%) by males; residency program director positions were held by 36 (42.9%) females and 48 (57.1%) males. More programs were located in the northeastern United States (n = 31, 36.9%) than in any other region, and more were self-described as academic (n = 36, 42.9%) than any other practice type. Programs that were led by a male chairperson had a similar proportion of female faculty (25.2% versus 27.3%; P = .322) and residents (26.2% versus 27.4%; P = .065) compared with those led by a female. Similarly, radiology departments with a male residency program director had a similar proportion of female residents (24.8% versus 28.7%; P = .055) compared with programs with a female residency program director. CONCLUSION: The gender composition of radiology faculty and residents does not differ significantly according to the gender of the departmental chairperson or residency program director. Nevertheless, there continues to be a disparity in the representation of women among radiology faculty and residents.     

Untapped Resources: Attaining Equitable Representation for Women in IR

Purpose

To investigate the current state of gender diversity among invited coordinators at the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) Annual Scientific Meeting and to compare the academic productivity of female interventional radiologists to that of invited male coordinators.

Burnout,Professional Fulfillment,Intention to Leave,and Sleep-Related Impairment Among Faculty Radiologists in the United States: An Epidemiologic Study

ObjectiveTo examine the prevalence of burnout in faculty radiologists in the United States and to explore the relationship between burnout and professional fulfillment (PF), intention to leave (ITL), and sleep-related impairment by gender.MethodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted through a voluntary anonymous, electronic survey of radiologists at 11 academic medical institutions participating in the Physician Wellness Academic Consortium between January 2017 and September 2018. Faculty radiologists who completed the survey were included in the study. The survey contained the validated professional fulfillment index and National Institute of Health Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System sleep-related impairment scale. Demographics of participants only included gender to protect anonymity. Sample t tests and χ² exact tests were used for analysis with significance level set at P < .05.ResultsIn all, 456 faculty radiologists (171 women) answered the survey. The overall prevalence of burnout was 37.4%, PF was 35.6%, ITL was 33.3%, and sleep-related impairment was 45.3%. Burnout was higher in female versus male respondents (44% versus 31%, P < .05), and PF and ITL were lower (30% versus 42%, P < .05, 26% versus 38%, P < .05, respectively). When faculty were stratified into burned out versus not burned out, PF was significantly lower in those with burnout (12% versus 52%, P < .05), and ITL and sleep-related impairment was higher (51% versus 24%, P < .05 and 75% versus 30%, P < .05, respectively).DiscussionHigher burnout was associated with reports of greater ITL and sleep-related impairment and lower PF. Female radiologists experience more burnout but less ITL than their male counterparts.     

Non-Research-Related Physician-Industry Relationships of Radiologists in the United States

PurposeTo evaluate non-research-related, physician-industry financial relationships in the United States, in 2013, as reported pursuant to the Physician Payments Sunshine Act (a provision of the Affordable Care Act).MethodsIn September 2014, CMS released the first five months (August 2013 to December 2013) of data disclosing physician-industry financial relationships. The frequency and value of non-research-related transfers in radiology were calculated and compared with those for 19 other specialties. Subanalyses of the frequency and value of such transfers in radiology were performed, based on state of licensure, radiologic subspecialty, nature of payment, manufacturer identity, and drug or device involved.ResultsA total of 7.4% (2,654 of 35,768) of radiologists from the United States had reportable non-research-related financial relationship(s) with industry during the 5-month period, the second-lowest level among the medical specialties evaluated. The average value of non-research-related transfers of value to radiologists, excluding royalties and licenses, was low ($438.71; SD: $2,912.15; median: $43.85), with <4% of radiologists receiving >$10 per month. Of all categories, that of food and beverage had the most transfers of value (86.0%; 5,655 of 6,577); royalties and licensure were associated with the greatest average value ($27,072.34; SD: $67,524.92). Although high-value relationships were rare, 57.8% (26 of 45) of radiologists who received a value >$1,000 per month held leadership positions in imaging enterprises.ConclusionsLess than 4% of radiologists have non-research-related financial relationships with industry that are valued at >$10 per month, suggesting that meaningful, deleterious effects of such relationships on radiology practice, if present, are infrequent.     

Radiologist-Practice Separation: Recent Trends and Characteristics

PurposeTo assess recent trends and characteristics in radiologist-practice separation across the United States.MethodsUsing the Medicare Physician Compare and Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File data sets, we linked all radiologists to associated group practices annually between 2014 and 2018 and assessed radiologist-practice separation over a variety of physician and group characteristics. Multivariate logistic regression modeling was used to estimate the likelihood of radiologist-practice separation.ResultsOf 25,228 unique radiologists associated with 4,381 unique group practices, 41.1% separated from at least one group practice between 2014 and 2018, and annual separation rates increased 38.4% over time (13.8% from 2014 to 2015 to 19.2% from 2017 to 2018). Radiologist-practice separation rates ranged from 57.4% in Utah to 26.3% in Virginia. Separation rates were 42.8% for general radiologists versus 38.2% for subspecialty radiologists. Among subspecialists, separation rates ranged from 43.0% for breast imagers to 33.5% for cardiothoracic radiologists. Early career status (odds ratio [OR] = 1.286) and late (OR = 1.554) career status were both independent positive predictors of radiologist-practice separation (both P < .001). Larger practice size (OR = 0.795), radiology-only (versus multispecialty) group (OR = 0.468), academic (versus nonacademic) practice (OR = 0.709), and abdominal (OR = 0.820), musculoskeletal (OR = 0.659), and neuroradiology (OR = 0.895) subspecialization were independent negative predictors (all P < .05).ConclusionsWith over 40% of radiologists separating from at least one practice in recent years, the US radiologist workforce is highly and increasingly mobile. Because reasons for separation (eg, resignation, practice acquisition) cannot be assessed using administrative data, further attention is warranted given the manifold financial, operational, and patient care implications.     

Pediatric Emergency Imaging Studies in Academic Radiology Departments: A Nationwide Survey of Staffing Practices

ObjectiveParticularly for pediatric patients presenting with acute conditions or challenging diagnoses, identifying variation in emergency radiology staffing models is essential in establishing a standard of care. We conducted a cross-sectional survey among radiology departments at academic pediatric hospitals to evaluate staffing models for providing imaging interpretation for emergency department imaging requests.MethodsWe conducted an anonymous telephone survey of academic pediatric hospitals affiliated with an accredited radiology residency program across the United States. We queried the timing, location, and experience of reporting radiologists for initial and final interpretations of emergency department imaging studies, during weekday, overnight, and weekend hours. We compared weekday with overnight, and weekday with weekend, using Fisher’s exact test and an α of 0.05.ResultsSurveying 42 of 47 freestanding academic pediatric hospitals (89%), we found statistically significant differences for initial reporting radiologist, final reporting radiologist, and final report timing between weekday and overnight. We found statistically significant differences for initial reporting radiologist and final report timing between weekday and weekend. Attending radiologist involvement in initial reports was 100% during daytime, but only 33.3% and 69.0% during overnight and weekends. For initial interpretation during overnight and weekend, 38.1% and 28.6% use resident radiologists without attending radiologists, and 28.6% and 2.4% use teleradiology. All finalized reports as soon as possible during weekdays, but only 52.4% and 78.6% during overnight and weekend.DiscussionA minority of hospitals use 24-hour in-house radiology attending radiologist coverage. During overnight periods, the majority of academic pediatric emergency departments rely on resident radiologists without attending radiologist supervision or outside teleradiology services to provide initial reports. During weekend periods, over a quarter rely on resident radiologists without attending radiologist supervision for initial reporting. This demonstrates significant variation in staffing practices at academic pediatric hospitals. Future studies should look to determine whether this variation has any impact on standard of care.     

Integration of a Community Radiology Division into a Subspecialty-Focused Academic Radiology Department

IntroductionAssimilate a general radiology division into a subspecialty-focused radiology department at an academic medical center.MethodsThis Institutional Review Board-approved quality improvement initiative was performed at an academic medical centers’ subspecialty-focused academic radiology department, aiming to assimilate a general radiology division providing interpretive services for a distributed set of community ambulatory practices. An Oversight Committee charged by the department chair created a charter with unambiguous goal, timelines, clear decision-making, and conflict resolution processes. The Committee assessed the resources and clinical capabilities of the general radiologists, and the anticipated shift in exam volume from the community into subspecialty divisions. Primary outcome, percentage of targeted organ systems-specific interpretations by general radiologists based on assigned subspecialty division, and secondary outcome of report turnaround time (TAT) for all ambulatory exams, were compared before and after sub-specialization.ResultsAmong 10 general radiologists, 4.5 were assigned to subspecialty divisions; 5.5 continued to cover an independent general radiology practice in a for-profit delivery network. In the 5 months’ post-transition, a total 86.6% (11,668/13,477) of reports by the integrated general radiologists were within designated subspecialty divisions vs 23.9% (2,586/10,829) pre-transition (P < 0.01). There was no change in ambulatory radiology report TAT for non-urgent care center (UCC) or UCC exams pre- vs post-integration.DiscussionA quality improvement initiative with unambiguous decision-making and conflict resolution processes incorporated a general radiology practice (radiologists and exams) into a subspecialty-focused academic radiology practice without negatively impacting TAT metrics. Future studies would be needed to assess impact on quality of interpretations.     

Gender and the Radiology Workforce: Results of the 2014 ACR Workforce Survey

PurposeAs part of the 2014 ACR Human Resources Commission Workforce Survey, an assessment of the gender of the U.S. radiologist workforce was undertaken. Radiologist gender in relation to type of practice, work location, leadership roles, and full- versus part-time employment have not previously been assessed by this survey.MethodsThe survey was completed by group leaders in radiology identified through the Practice of Radiology Environment Database.ResultsThe response rate to the survey was 22%, representing 35% of all practicing radiologists. The survey found that 78% of the radiology workforce is male, and 22% female. Among the men, 58% work in private practice, and 18% in the academic/university environment; among women, percentages were 43% and 31%, respectively. Of all physician leads, 85% are men, 15% women. Of the full-time radiologists, 15% of men are practice leaders compared with 11% of women.ConclusionsFewer women than men are in private practice. More women than men practice in academic/university environments. Among part-time radiologists, there are more men than women, but significantly more women work part time than men. Women are in the minority among practice leaders.     

Identifying Barriers and Facilitators of Success for Female Radiology Researchers: An Analysis of In-Depth Interviews With Nationally Recognized Leaders of the Field

ObjectiveWomen are highly underrepresented among leadership positions within radiology research, disproportionate to their underrepresentation in radiology overall. We sought to identify the causes and solutions of such disparity at the personal, organizational, and institutional levels among female radiology researchers who are leaders in the field.Subjects and methodsWe used purposive sampling to identify nationally recognized female leaders in radiology research. We developed a semistructured interview guide and conducted in-depth one-on-one telephone interviews with participants (n = 16) that ranged from 36 to 65 min. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data were analyzed by two researchers trained in qualitative methods using Saldana’s first- and second-cycle coding method. Themes were identified using a grounded theory approach to identify meaningful patterns that addressed the research question.ResultsParticipants identified barriers to their professional development and success, including personal and professional obstacles often associated with work-life balance and the nonlinear nature of women’s careers because of caregiving responsibilities. Participants also identified facilitators of success that operated at the individual, organizational, and institutional level, such as purposeful networking, having an advocate, and participating in leadership events.ConclusionThis study represents the first effort to qualitatively capture the facilitators of success for nationally recognized female radiology researchers. Findings suggest that synergistic efforts can be undertaken by early-career female radiologists and their colleagues, national radiology organizations, and academic institutions to systematically enable the inclusion and participation of women. The field of radiology should consider how to work dynamically at multiple levels to implement the identified potential changes.     

Learning From Experience- Confronting Challenges and Adapting to Change in a Large Academic Abdominal Radiology Practice: Insights From a Faculty Retreat

RationaleSubstantial organizational changes, increasing clinical volumes, and the COVID-19 pandemic presented compound stressors to faculty radiologists in our large academic abdominal radiology division and necessitated multiple changes in our practice.MethodsTo address the challenges and establish group consensus, we conducted a virtual divisional faculty retreat centered on themes of team building, clinical work, trainee education, and faculty mentorship. A pre-retreat survey evaluated satisfaction with aspects of professional life and clinical work practices and invited personal reflections. Survey data were presented in the retreat segments focused on each theme, and subsequent discussion was facilitated in small group breakouts.ResultsResponses to the team-building survey revealed common values and sources of gratitude, including health, family and meaningful work and relationships. Faculty reported a strong sense of personal accomplishment, but with varied emotional exhaustion scores. Faculty were satisfied with remote work assignments but identified opportunities to improve the clinical work schedule including reversion of some remote assignments to in-person and increased interventional radiology shift staggering. Compared to pre-COVID practice, faculty respondents perceived giving lower quality and less frequent feedback to trainees; evolving educational resource needs were identified. A more formal approach to faculty mentoring was sought. A post-retreat survey revealed high participant satisfaction.OutcomesIn the future, we plan to continue divisional retreat activities to respond to evolving challenges and further improve team building, clinical workflow, trainee education, and faculty mentorship.     

Diagnostic Performance of Deep Learning-Based Lesion Detection Algorithm in CT for Detecting Hepatic Metastasis from Colorectal Cancer

ObjectiveTo compare the performance of the deep learning-based lesion detection algorithm (DLLD) in detecting liver metastasis with that of radiologists.Materials and MethodsThis clinical retrospective study used 4386-slice computed tomography (CT) images and labels from a training cohort (502 patients with colorectal cancer [CRC] from November 2005 to December 2010) to train the DLLD for detecting liver metastasis, and used CT images of a validation cohort (40 patients with 99 liver metastatic lesions and 45 patients without liver metastasis from January 2011 to December 2011) for comparing the performance of the DLLD with that of readers (three abdominal radiologists and three radiology residents). For per-lesion binary classification, the sensitivity and false positives per patient were measured.ResultsA total of 85 patients with CRC were included in the validation cohort. In the comparison based on per-lesion binary classification, the sensitivity of DLLD (81.82%, [81/99]) was comparable to that of abdominal radiologists (80.81%, p = 0.80) and radiology residents (79.46%, p = 0.57). However, the false positives per patient with DLLD (1.330) was higher than that of abdominal radiologists (0.357, p < 0.001) and radiology residents (0.667, p < 0.001).ConclusionDLLD showed a sensitivity comparable to that of radiologists when detecting liver metastasis in patients initially diagnosed with CRC. However, the false positives of DLLD were higher than those of radiologists. Therefore, DLLD could serve as an assistant tool for detecting liver metastasis instead of a standalone diagnostic tool.     

Career paths in diagnostic radiology: scope and effect of part-time work.

PURPOSE: To determine the extent and consequences of part-time work in radiology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was mailed to 1,500 male and 1,500 female radiologists. Questions assessed part-time work and its effect on professional and family issues. The effects of education, radiology practice characteristics, organizational support, human resource practices, and family responsibilities on career and professional satisfaction were studied. RESULTS: Ten and a half percent of the radiologists surveyed--7.4% of the men and 30.2% of the women--were working part-time. The part-time radiologists reported earning 56.3% of the income earned by full-time radiologists and working 56.9% of the hours worked by their full-time counterparts, with disproportionately fewer benefits. Part-time private practice radiologists were significantly less likely to be partners. For academic radiologists, having worked part-time at any time was significantly associated with lower academic rank. CONCLUSION: The motivation for working part-time differed significantly according to gender and age. Benefits were disproportionate, and radiologists who had worked part-time were less likely to be partners or full professors.