ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Where Your Eyes Go: How AI Output Design Impacts Reading Behavior.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose was to examine how variations in AI output design affect radiologists' performance in interpreting chest X-rays. Eight readers interpreted 80 COVID-19 chest images under five AI conditions in this retrospective study: no feedback, one-word summary, graph, heatmap, and heatmap + graph. Reader accuracy and eye-tracking data were analyzed to assess diagnostic performance and efficiency. Performance data were analyzed using a generalized mixed model nested for cases within readers assuming a binary distribution and with sandwich estimation; eye-tracking data were analyzed with analysis of variance. Baseline accuracy for detecting COVID-19 without AI was high and remained largely consistent across all AI designs. Fewer than 1% of decisions changed from correct to incorrect (true positive → false negative; true negative → false positive) with AI, while approximately 1% of decisions improved (false negative → true positive; false positive → true negative). More complex AI displays, such as the combined heatmap + graph, were associated with longer interpretation times and increased gaze shifts between the clinical image and AI outputs. Providing well-designed AI output can increase diagnosis accuracy and visual search of chest images. Simpler displays may support faster decision-making, whereas complex visualizations could impose additional cognitive demands to process the additional information. However, accuracy improvements likely outweigh modest increases in viewing time. Optimizing the presentation of AI information is essential to integrate human expertise effectively and create a synergistic human-AI partnership in clinical imaging, where the human remains the ultimate decision-maker.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42371278What 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.