Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38412177›Full record

ArticlePLoS genetics2024

Comparison of clinical geneticist and computer visual attention in assessing genetic conditions.

Dat Duong, Anna Rose Johny, Suzanna Ledgister Hanchard, Christopher Fortney, Kendall Flaharty, Fabio Hellmann, Ping Hu, Behnam Javanmardi, Shahida Moosa, Tanviben Patel and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Disparate language and model effects on AI-based translation and recognition of genetic conditions.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Artificial intelligence in clinical genetics.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Dat DuongMedical Genetics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3022-9378
Anna Rose JohnyInstitute for Genomic Statistics and Bioinformatics, University Hospital Bonn, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Suzanna Ledgister HanchardMedical Genetics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Christopher FortneySocial and Behavioral Research Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0009-0008-3522-5839
Kendall FlahartyMedical Genetics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Fabio HellmannChair for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Ping HuMedical Genetics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Behnam JavanmardiInstitute for Genomic Statistics and Bioinformatics, University Hospital Bonn, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9317-6114
Shahida MoosaDivision of Molecular Biology and Human Genetics, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Tanviben PatelMedical Genetics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9630-3123
Susan PerskySocial and Behavioral Research Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7768-5744
Ömer SümerChair for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1308-3960
Cedrik Tekendo-NgongangMedical Genetics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2709-4807
Hellen LesmannInstitute for Genomic Statistics and Bioinformatics, University Hospital Bonn, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Tzung-Chien HsiehInstitute for Genomic Statistics and Bioinformatics, University Hospital Bonn, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Rebekah L WaikelMedical Genetics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Elisabeth AndréChair for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2367-162X
Peter KrawitzInstitute for Genomic Statistics and Bioinformatics, University Hospital Bonn, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Benjamin D SolomonMedical Genetics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-8826-1023
National Human Genome Research Institute · USUniversity of Bonn · DEUniversity of Augsburg · DEStellenbosch University · ZA

Funding

Immersive Virtual Environment Testing AreaZIDHG200384 · NHGRI · NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI PERSKY, SUSAN · 2012 to 2025
$7.1M
Medical Genomics Unit Analytic ProjectsZIAHG200405 · NHGRI · NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI SOLOMON, BENJAMIN · 2020 to 2025
$4.4M
NIH HHS INTRAMURAL RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) for facial diagnostics is increasingly used in the genetics clinic to evaluate patients with potential genetic conditions. Current approaches focus on one type of AI called Deep Learning (DL). While DL- based facial diagnostic platforms have a high accuracy rate for many conditions, less is understood about how this technology assesses and classifies (categorizes) images, and how this compares to humans. To compare human and computer attention, we performed eye-tracking analyses of geneticist clinicians (n = 22) and non-clinicians (n = 22) who viewed images of people with 10 different genetic conditions, as well as images of unaffected individuals. We calculated the Intersection-over-Union (IoU) and Kullback-Leibler divergence (KL) to compare the visual attentions of the two participant groups, and then the clinician group against the saliency maps of our deep learning classifier. We found that human visual attention differs greatly from DL model's saliency results. Averaging over all the test images, IoU and KL metric for the successful (accurate) clinician visual attentions versus the saliency maps were 0.15 and 11.15, respectively. Individuals also tend to have a specific pattern of image inspection, and clinicians demonstrate different visual attention patterns than non-clinicians (IoU and KL of clinicians versus non-clinicians were 0.47 and 2.73, respectively). This study shows that humans (at different levels of expertise) and a computer vision model examine images differently. Understanding these differences can improve the design and use of AI tools, and lead to more meaningful interactions between clinicians and AI technologies.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceComputersComputer SimulationHumans

Identifiers

PMID38412177
PMCPMC10923488
OpenAlexW4392189206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.