ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
Extracting decision-making features from the unstructured eye movements of clinicians on glaucoma OCT reports and developing AI models to classify expertise.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Health Care Professionals' Engagement With a Precision Dosing Calculator and Supporting Clinical Information: Insights From an Eye-Tracking and Usability Study.Therapeutic drug monitoring · 2025Article
- Augmented Decisions: AI-Enhanced Accuracy in Glaucoma Diagnosis and Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The Effect of Experience on Visual Search Patterns in Retinal Imaging Analysis.Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina · 2025Article
- The Use of Machine Learning in Eye Tracking Studies in Medical Imaging: A Review.IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics · 2024Review
- A Practical Guide to Evaluating Artificial Intelligence Imaging Models in Scientific Literature.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the eye movement patterns of ophthalmologists with varying expertise levels during the assessment of optical coherence tomography (OCT) reports for glaucoma detection. Objectives included evaluating eye gaze metrics and patterns as a function of ophthalmic education, deriving novel features from eye-tracking, and developing binary classification models for disease detection and expertise differentiation. Thirteen ophthalmology residents, fellows, and clinicians specializing in glaucoma participated in the study. Junior residents had less than 1 year of experience, while senior residents had 2-3 years of experience. The expert group consisted of fellows and faculty with over 3 to 30+ years of experience. Each participant was presented with a set of 20 Topcon OCT reports (10 healthy and 10 glaucomatous) and was asked to determine the presence or absence of glaucoma and rate their confidence of diagnosis. The eye movements of each participant were recorded as they diagnosed the reports using a Pupil Labs Core eye tracker. Expert ophthalmologists exhibited more refined and focused eye fixations, particularly on specific regions of the OCT reports, such as the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) probability map and circumpapillary RNFL b-scan. The binary classification models developed using the derived features demonstrated high accuracy up to 94.0% in differentiating between expert and novice clinicians. The derived features and trained binary classification models hold promise for improving the accuracy of glaucoma detection and distinguishing between expert and novice ophthalmologists. These findings have implications for enhancing ophthalmic education and for the development of effective diagnostic tools.
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.