Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42371278›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026

Where Your Eyes Go: How AI Output Design Impacts Reading Behavior.

Elizabeth A Krupinski, Marly van Assen, Carlo N De Cecco, Siobhan Mullins, Roy M Gabriel, Reza Zandehshahvar, Nattakorn Kittisut, Ali Adibi, Grayson L Baird

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Elizabeth A KrupinskiDepartment of Radiology & Imaging Sciences Emory University, 1364 Clifton Rd NE, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA. ekrupin@emory.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2996-7242
Marly van AssenDepartment of Radiology & Imaging Sciences Emory University, 1364 Clifton Rd NE, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Carlo N De CeccoDepartment of Radiology & Imaging Sciences Emory University, 1364 Clifton Rd NE, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Siobhan MullinsDepartment of Radiology & Imaging Sciences Emory University, 1364 Clifton Rd NE, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Roy M GabrielSchool of Electrical & Computer Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology, 777 Atlantic Dr NW, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA.
Reza ZandehshahvarSchool of Industrial & Systems Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology, 755 Ferst Dr NW, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA.
Nattakorn KittisutSchool of Electrical & Computer Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology, 777 Atlantic Dr NW, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA.
Ali AdibiSchool of Electrical & Computer Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology, 777 Atlantic Dr NW, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA.
Grayson L BairdDepartment of Radiology Brown University, 593 Eddy St, Providence, RI, 02903, USA.

Funding

National Science Foundation 220152 - SCH
6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial intelligenceEye-trackingHuman factorsMedical decision makingMedical image perceptionPrompts

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.