Understanding Cardiology Practitioners’ Interpretations of Electrocardiograms: An Eye-Tracking Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Visual expertise refers to advanced visual skills demonstrated when performing domain-specific visual tasks. Prior research has emphasized the fact that medical experts rely on such perceptual pattern-recognition skills when interpreting medical images, particularly in the field of electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation. Analyzing and modeling cardiology practitioners' visual behavior across different levels of expertise in the health care sector is crucial. Namely, understanding such acquirable visual skills may help train less experienced clinicians to interpret ECGs accurately. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to quantify and analyze through the use of eye-tracking technology differences in the visual behavior and methodological practices for different expertise levels of cardiology practitioners such as medical students, cardiology nurses, technicians, fellows, and consultants when interpreting several types of ECGs. METHODS: A total of 63 participants with different levels of clinical expertise took part in an eye-tracking study that consisted of interpreting 10 ECGs with different cardiac abnormalities. A counterbalanced within-subjects design was used with one independent variable consisting of the expertise level of the cardiology practitioners and two dependent variables of eye-tracking metrics (fixations count and fixation revisitations). The eye movements data revealed by specific visual behaviors were analyzed according to the accuracy of interpretation and the frequency with which interpreters visited different parts/leads on a standard 12-lead ECG. In addition, the median and SD in the IQR for the fixations count and the mean and SD for the ECG lead revisitations were calculated. RESULTS: Accuracy of interpretation ranged between 98% among consultants, 87% among fellows, 70% among technicians, 63% among nurses, and finally 52% among medical students. The results of the eye fixations count, and eye fixation revisitations indicate that the less experienced cardiology practitioners need to interpret several ECG leads more carefully before making any decision. However, more experienced cardiology practitioners rely on their skills to recognize the visual signal patterns of different cardiac abnormalities, providing an accurate ECG interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that visual expertise for ECG interpretation is linked to the practitioner's role within the health care system and the number of years of practical experience interpreting ECGs. Cardiology practitioners focus on different ECG leads and different waveform abnormalities according to their role in the health care sector and their expertise levels.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».