ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2012
Mouse cursor movement and eye tracking data as an indicator of pathologists' attention when viewing digital whole slide images.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward uncertainty-aware manual delineation of brain tumours using eye-tracking and image-derived features.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Eye tracking in digital pathology: A comprehensive literature review.Journal of pathology informatics · 2024Review
- An analysis of pathologists' viewing processes as they diagnose whole slide digital images.Journal of pathology informatics · 2022Article
- Deep Learning Approaches and Applications in Toxicologic Histopathology: Current Status and Future Perspectives.Journal of pathology informatics · 2021Review
- Machine Learning Methods for Histopathological Image Analysis.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2018Review
- PathEdEx - Uncovering High-explanatory Visual Diagnostics Heuristics Using Digital Pathology and Multiscale Gaze Data.Journal of pathology informatics · 2017Article
- Pupil diameter changes reflect difficulty and diagnostic accuracy during medical image interpretation.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2016Article
- Do We Know Why We Make Errors in Morphological Diagnosis? An Analysis of Approach and Decision-Making in Haematological Morphology.EBioMedicine · 2015Article
- Diagnostic performance on briefly presented digital pathology images.Journal of pathology informatics · 2015Article
- Students' performance during practical examination on whole slide images using view path tracking.Diagnostic pathology · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextDigital pathology has the potential to dramatically alter the way pathologists work, yet little is known about pathologists' viewing behavior while interpreting digital whole slide images. While tracking pathologist eye movements when viewing digital slides may be the most direct method of capturing pathologists' viewing strategies, this technique is cumbersome and technically challenging to use in remote settings. Tracking pathologist mouse cursor movements may serve as a practical method of studying digital slide interpretation, and mouse cursor data may illuminate pathologists' viewing strategies and time expenditures in their interpretive workflow.
aimsTo evaluate the utility of mouse cursor movement data, in addition to eye-tracking data, in studying pathologists' attention and viewing behavior. SETTINGS AND
designPathologists (N = 7) viewed 10 digital whole slide images of breast tissue that were selected using a random stratified sampling technique to include a range of breast pathology diagnoses (benign/atypia, carcinoma in situ, and invasive breast cancer). A panel of three expert breast pathologists established a consensus diagnosis for each case using a modified Delphi approach. MATERIALS AND
methodsParticipants' foveal vision was tracked using SensoMotoric Instruments RED 60 Hz eye-tracking system. Mouse cursor movement was tracked using a custom MATLAB script. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Data on eye-gaze and mouse cursor position were gathered at fixed intervals and analyzed using distance comparisons and regression analyses by slide diagnosis and pathologist expertise. Pathologists' accuracy (defined as percent agreement with the expert consensus diagnoses) and efficiency (accuracy and speed) were also analyzed.
resultsMean viewing time per slide was 75.2 seconds (SD = 38.42). Accuracy (percent agreement with expert consensus) by diagnosis type was: 83% (benign/atypia); 48% (carcinoma in situ); and 93% (invasive). Spatial coupling was close between eye-gaze and mouse cursor positions (highest frequency ∆x was 4.00px (SD = 16.10), and ∆y was 37.50px (SD = 28.08)). Mouse cursor position moderately predicted eye gaze patterns (Rx = 0.33 and Ry = 0.21).
conclusionsData detailing mouse cursor movements may be a useful addition to future studies of pathologists' accuracy and efficiency when using digital pathology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.