ReviewJournal of pathology informatics2024
Eye tracking in digital pathology: A comprehensive literature review.
Review in Journal of pathology informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Screening efficiency over experience: Rapid target detection in low-power field as a modifiable cognitive biomarker for diagnostic accuracy in digital cytology.Cancer cytopathology · 2026Article
- Quantitative digital pathology reveals morphological and molecular correlates of tumor aggressiveness in prostate cancer.International urology and nephrology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Eye tracking has been used for decades in attempt to understand the cognitive processes of individuals. From memory access to problem-solving to decision-making, such insight has the potential to improve workflows and the education of students to become experts in relevant fields. Until recently, the traditional use of microscopes in pathology made eye tracking exceptionally difficult. However, the digital revolution of pathology from conventional microscopes to digital whole slide images allows for new research to be conducted and information to be learned with regards to pathologist visual search patterns and learning experiences. This has the promise to make pathology education more efficient and engaging, ultimately creating stronger and more proficient generations of pathologists to come. The goal of this review on eye tracking in pathology is to characterize and compare the visual search patterns of pathologists. The PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched using 'pathology' AND 'eye tracking' synonyms. A total of 22 relevant full-text articles published up to and including 2023 were identified and included in this review. Thematic analysis was conducted to organize each study into one or more of the 10 themes identified to characterize the visual search patterns of pathologists: (1) effect of experience, (2) fixations, (3) zooming, (4) panning, (5) saccades, (6) pupil diameter, (7) interpretation time, (8) strategies, (9) machine learning, and (10) education. Expert pathologists were found to have higher diagnostic accuracy, fewer fixations, and shorter interpretation times than pathologists with less experience. Further, literature on eye tracking in pathology indicates that there are several visual strategies for diagnostic interpretation of digital pathology images, but no evidence of a superior strategy exists. The educational implications of eye tracking in pathology have also been explored but the effect of teaching novices how to search as an expert remains unclear. In this article, the main challenges and prospects of eye tracking in pathology are briefly discussed along with their implications to the field.
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.