ArticleNPJ digital medicine2024
Expert gaze as a usability indicator of medical AI decision support systems: a preliminary study.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2024. 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.
- Human-AI Collaboration in Healthcare: A Scoping Review.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Eye-Tracking Evidence That Verifiable Explanations Support Visual Evidence Checking in AI-Assisted Chest Radiograph Interpretation.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Article
- Assessing the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Caries Detection and Clinical Decision-Making: A Scoping Review.Caries research · 2026Review
- Eye Tracking-Enhanced Deep Learning for Medical Image Analysis: A Systematic Review on Data Efficiency, Interpretability, and Multimodal Integration.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Evaluating Equity in Usage and Effectiveness of the CONCERN Early Warning System.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given the current state of medical artificial intelligence (AI) and perceptions towards it, collaborative systems are becoming the preferred choice for clinical workflows. This work aims to address expert interaction with medical AI support systems to gain insight towards how these systems can be better designed with the user in mind. As eye tracking metrics have been shown to be robust indicators of usability, we employ them for evaluating the usability and user interaction with medical AI support systems. We use expert gaze to assess experts' interaction with an AI software for caries detection in bitewing x-ray images. We compared standard viewing of bitewing images without AI support versus viewing where AI support could be freely toggled on and off. We found that experts turned the AI on for roughly 25% of the total inspection task, and generally turned it on halfway through the course of the inspection. Gaze behavior showed that when supported by AI, more attention was dedicated to user interface elements related to the AI support, with more frequent transitions from the image itself to these elements. When considering that expert visual strategy is already optimized for fast and effective image inspection, such interruptions in attention can lead to increased time needed for the overall assessment. Gaze analysis provided valuable insights into an AI's usability for medical image inspection. Further analyses of these tools and how to delineate metrical measures of usability should be developed.
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.