ArticleScientific reports2025
Modeling radiologists' cognitive processes using a digital gaze twin to enhance radiology training.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- From fragmented neurotechnologies to closed-loop brain health systems: integrating artificial intelligence, digital health, digital twins, and advanced materials for brain disorders.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Article
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
Abstract
Predicting human gaze behavior is critical for advancing interactive systems and improving diagnostic accuracy in medical imaging. We present MedGaze, a novel system inspired by the "Digital Gaze Twin" concept, which models radiologists' cognitive processes and predicts scanpaths in chest X-ray (CXR) images. Using a two-stage training approach-Vision to Radiology Report Learning (VR2) and Vision-Language Cognition Learning (VLC)-MedGaze combines visual features with radiology reports, leveraging large datasets like MIMIC to replicate radiologists' visual search patterns. MedGaze outperformed state-of-the-art methods on the EGD-CXR and REFLACX datasets, achieving IoU scores of 0.41 [95% CI 0.40, 0.42] vs. 0.27 [95% CI 0.26, 0.28], Correlation Coefficient (CC) of 0.50 [95% CI 0.48, 0.51] vs. 0.37 [95% CI 0.36, 0.41], and Multimatch scores of 0.80 [95% CI 0.79, 0.81] vs. 0.71 [95% CI 0.70, 0.71], with similar improvements on REFLACX. It also demonstrated its ability to assess clinical workload through fixation duration, showing a significant Spearman rank correlation of 0.65 (p < 0.001) with true clinical workload ranks on EGD-CXR. The human evaluation revealed that 13 out of 20 predicted scanpaths closely resembled expert patterns, with 18 out of 20 covering 60-80% of key regions. MedGaze's ability to minimize redundancy and emulate expert gaze behavior enhances training and diagnostics, offering valuable insights into radiologist decision-making and improving clinical outcomes.
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.