ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020
Leveraging Eye Tracking to Prioritize Relevant Medical Record Data: Comparative Machine Learning Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinicians' Visual Attention During Suicide Screening Encounters: An Exploratory Eye-Tracking Study.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Evaluating Equity in Usage and Effectiveness of the CONCERN Early Warning System.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- The Use of Machine Learning in Eye Tracking Studies in Medical Imaging: A Review.IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics · 2024Review
- A voice-based digital assistant for intelligent prompting of evidence-based practices during ICU rounds.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2023Article
- The Role of Data Science in Closing the Implementation Gap.Critical care clinics · 2023Review
- Initial Development of an Automated Platform for Assessing Trainee Performance on Case Presentations.ATS scholar · 2022Article
- Eye-Tracking-Based Analysis of Situational Awareness of Nurses.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Eye Tracking-An Innovative Tool in Medical Parasitology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Evaluation of eye tracking for a decision support application.JAMIA open · 2021Article
- A simple electronic medical record system designed for research.JAMIA open · 2021Article
- Sex Differences in Electronic Health Record Navigation Strategies: Secondary Data Analysis.JMIR human factors · 2021Article
- Use of a quantitative data report in a hypothetical decision scenario for health policymaking: a computer-assisted laboratory study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Leveraging Eye Tracking to Prioritize Relevant Medical Record Data: Comparative Machine Learning Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundElectronic medical record (EMR) systems capture large amounts of data per patient and present that data to physicians with little prioritization. Without prioritization, physicians must mentally identify and collate relevant data, an activity that can lead to cognitive overload. To mitigate cognitive overload, a Learning EMR (LEMR) system prioritizes the display of relevant medical record data. Relevant data are those that are pertinent to a context-defined as the combination of the user, clinical task, and patient case. To determine which data are relevant in a specific context, a LEMR system uses supervised machine learning models of physician information-seeking behavior. Since obtaining information-seeking behavior data via manual annotation is slow and expensive, automatic methods for capturing such data are needed.
objectiveThe goal of the research was to propose and evaluate eye tracking as a high-throughput method to automatically acquire physician information-seeking behavior useful for training models for a LEMR system.
methodsCritical care medicine physicians reviewed intensive care unit patient cases in an EMR interface developed for the study. Participants manually identified patient data that were relevant in the context of a clinical task: preparing a patient summary to present at morning rounds. We used eye tracking to capture each physician's gaze dwell time on each data item (eg, blood glucose measurements). Manual annotations and gaze dwell times were used to define target variables for developing supervised machine learning models of physician information-seeking behavior. We compared the performance of manual selection and gaze-derived models on an independent set of patient cases.
resultsA total of 68 pairs of manual selection and gaze-derived machine learning models were developed from training data and evaluated on an independent evaluation data set. A paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed similar performance of manual selection and gaze-derived models on area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (P=.40).
conclusionsWe used eye tracking to automatically capture physician information-seeking behavior and used it to train models for a LEMR system. The models that were trained using eye tracking performed like models that were trained using manual annotations. These results support further development of eye tracking as a high-throughput method for training clinical decision support systems that prioritize the display of relevant medical record data.
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.