ArticleJAMIA open2021
Evaluation of eye tracking for a decision support application.
Article in JAMIA open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Eye-Tracking Evidence That Verifiable Explanations Support Visual Evidence Checking in AI-Assisted Chest Radiograph Interpretation.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Article
- Conducting Eye-Tracking Research in Acute Care: A Scoping Review of Ethical, Feasibility and Acceptability Challenges.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Evaluating Equity in Usage and Effectiveness of the CONCERN Early Warning System.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- Blending in or standing out? The disclosure dilemma of ad cues of social media native advertising.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- The Use of Machine Learning in Eye Tracking Studies in Medical Imaging: A Review.IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics · 2024Review
- Unpacking Situational Awareness in Emergency Medical Services: An Eye-Tracking Study of Visual Attention.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Eye tracking is used widely to investigate attention and cognitive processes while performing tasks in electronic medical record (EMR) systems. We explored a novel application of eye tracking to collect training data for a machine learning-based clinical decision support tool that predicts which patient data are likely to be relevant for a clinical task. Specifically, we investigated in a laboratory setting the accuracy of eye tracking compared to manual annotation for inferring which patient data in the EMR are judged to be relevant by physicians. We evaluated several methods for processing gaze points that were recorded using a low-cost eye-tracking device. Our results show that eye tracking achieves accuracy and precision of 69% and 53%, respectively compared to manual annotation and are promising for machine learning. The methods for processing gaze points and scripts that we developed offer a first step in developing novel uses for eye tracking for clinical decision support.
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.