Hand the identical images to two readers and you can get two different reports. That unsettles people. It should interest them instead.
The pixels do not change. What changes is everything around the read. Whether every sequence was opened. Whether the findings were measured or merely glanced at. Whether there was a proper reference to compare against. Whether the reader knew the patient's actual complaint and let it guide the eye.
A study called clean on a fast pass can hold an answer that a slower, more methodical read brings into focus. Not because the first reader was careless as a person, but because effort, method, and depth in that exact area decide what gets seen.
This is the whole case for taking the read seriously. The image is fixed. The quality of the interpretation is not.
When it matters, the question is never just what the scan shows. It is who looked, how hard, and with what.