ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2024
AI-Assisted Diagnostics in Dentistry: An Eye-Tracking Study on User Behavior.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2024. 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.
- Assessment of artificial intelligence in detecting errors on panoramic radiographs.Imaging science in dentistry · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial Intelligence (AI) has increasingly been integrated into dental practices, notably in radiographic imaging like Orthopantomograms (OPGs), transforming diagnostic protocols. Eye tracking technology offers a method to understand how dentists' visual attention may differ between conventional and AI-assisted diagnostics, but its integration into daily clinical practice is challenged by the cost and complexity of traditional systems. Material and Methods: Thirty experienced practitioners and dental students participated to evaluate the effectiveness of two low-budget eye-tracking systems, including the Peye Tracker (Eye Tracking Systems LTD, Southsea, UK) and Webgazer.js (Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island) in a clinical setting to assess their utility in capturing dentists' visual engagement with OPGs. The hardware and software setup, environmental conditions, and the process for eye-tracking data collection and analysis are illustrated. Results: The study found significant differences in eye-tracking accuracy between the two systems, with Webgazer.js showing higher accuracy compared to Peye Tracker ( Conclusions: Low-budget eye-tracking devices present challenges in achieving the desired accuracy for analyzing dentists' visual attention in clinical practice, highlighting the need for continued innovation and improvement in this technology.
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.