Throwback Thursday - Thought Control in Roentgen Diagnosis (1961)

VRU 2(1): 4-5

Perhaps to me the most memorable OG VRU article is “Thought Control in Roentgen Diagnosis” by Dr. John A. Campbell, M.D., F.A.C.R., Professor and Chairman of the Department of Radiology at Indiana University School of Medicine. The article discusses 15 types of thought control that can influence the interpretation of a roentgenogram (X-ray image). These types of thought control include:

  1. Provincialism: scientific astigmatism governed by the physician’s interest in their own field.

  2. Authority: thought controlled by brainwashing.

  3. Distraction: thought controlled by external factors.

  4. Association: thought controlled by association with another obvious finding.

  5. Prejudication: thought controlled by historical information.

  6. Assumption: thought controlled by assumptions.

  7. Omission: failure to perform an obvious procedure.

  8. Improbability: failure to accept reality when it reaches inconceivable proportions.

  9. Intellectualism: thought controlled by erudition.

  10. Deception: thought controlled by look-alikes.

  11. Inhibition: mental exhaustion on the part of the viewer.

  12. Convention: dedication to orthodoxy.

  13. Provocation: diagnosis provoked by a pathognomonic sign.

  14. Recollection: thought controlled by past experiences.

  15. Litigation: fear that the interpretation may be challenged in court.

The article concludes that this classification is incomplete and inadequate as new forms of thought control are constantly being discovered and they occur in a variety of combinations.

So why does this article stand out in my mind? It is the entire premise, the style, the word choices, but mostly for infamy and the fact that it includes such absolutely ridiculous lines as:

“[Distraction] is sort of a scoliosis of the mind and can be caused by factors less obvious than a naked woman walking through the office. A medical student may be so distracted by the breast shadows on a chest that he fails to appreciate the findings of a patent ductus arteriosus.”

The fact that this was at some point publishable is utterly laughable. We have come a long way, still, perhaps not far enough.

How did we do?

Login or Subscribe to participate in polls.

Disclaimer: The summary generated in this email was created by an AI large language model. Therefore errors may occur. Reading the article is the best way to understand the scholarly work. The figure presented here remains the property of the publisher or author and subject to the applicable copyright agreement. It is reproduced here as an educational work. If you have any questions or concerns about the work presented here, reply to this email.