ArticleBMC medical education2022
Oral presentation assessment and image reading behaviour on brain computed tomography reading in novice clinical learners: an eye-tracking study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Quantifying the development of visual expertise in medical image interpretation using fractal eye-gaze metrics.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo study whether oral presentation (OP) assessment could reflect the novice learners' interpretation skills and reading behaviour on brain computed tomography (CT) reading.
methodsEighty fifth-year medical students were recruited, received a 2-hour interactive workshop on how to read brain CT, and were assigned to read two brain CT images before and after instruction. We evaluated their image reading behaviour in terms of overall OP post-test rating, the lesion identification, and competency in systematic image reading after instruction. Students' reading behaviour in searching for the target lesions were recorded by the eye-tracking technique and were used to validate the accuracy of lesion reports. Statistical analyses, including lag sequential analysis (LSA), linear mixed models, and transition entropy (TE) were conducted to reveal temporal relations and spatial complexity of systematic image reading from the eye movement perspective.
resultsThe overall OP ratings [pre-test vs. post-test: 0 vs. 1 in case 1, 0 vs. 1 in case 2, p < 0.001] improved after instruction. Both the scores of systematic OP ratings [0 vs.1 in both cases, p < 0.001] and eye-tracking studies (Case 1: 3.42 ± 0.62 and 3.67 ± 0.37 in TE, p = 0.001; Case 2: 3.42 ± 0.76 and 3.75 ± 0.37 in TE, p = 0.002) showed that the image reading behaviour changed before and after instruction. The results of linear mixed models suggested a significant interaction between instruction and area of interests for case 1 (p < 0.001) and case 2 (p = 0.004). Visual attention to the target lesions in the case 1 assessed by dwell time were 506.50 ± 509.06 and 374.38 ± 464.68 milliseconds before and after instruction (p = 0.02). However, the dwell times in the case 2, the fixation counts and the frequencies of accurate lesion diagnoses in both cases did not change after instruction.
conclusionOur results showed OP performance may change concurrently with the medical students' reading behaviour on brain CT after a structured instruction.
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.