Characterizing Search, Recognition, and Decision in the Detection of Lung Nodules on CT Scans: Elucidation with Eye Tracking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of radiologists' search, recognition, and acceptance of lung nodules on computed tomographic (CT) images by using eye tracking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was performed with a protocol approved by the institutional review board. All study subjects provided informed consent, and all private health information was protected in accordance with HIPAA. A remote eye tracker was used to record time-varying gaze paths while 13 radiologists interpreted 40 lung CT images with an average of 3.9 synthetic nodules (5-mm diameter) embedded randomly in the lung parenchyma. The radiologists' gaze volumes ( GV gaze volume s) were defined as the portion of the lung parenchyma within 50 pixels (approximately 3 cm) of all gaze points. The fraction of the total lung volume encompassed within the GV gaze volume s, the fraction of lung nodules encompassed within each GV gaze volume (search effectiveness), the fraction of lung nodules within the GV gaze volume detected by the reader (recognition-acceptance effectiveness), and overall sensitivity of lung nodule detection were measured. RESULTS: Detected nodules were within 50 pixels of the nearest gaze point for 990 of 992 correct detections. On average, radiologists searched 26.7% of the lung parenchyma in 3 minutes and 16 seconds and encompassed between 86 and 143 of 157 nodules within their GV gaze volume s. Once encompassed within their GV gaze volume , the average sensitivity of nodule recognition and acceptance ranged from 47 of 100 nodules to 103 of 124 nodules (sensitivity, 0.47-0.82). Overall sensitivity ranged from 47 to 114 of 157 nodules (sensitivity, 0.30-0.73) and showed moderate correlation (r = 0.62, P = .02) with the fraction of lung volume searched. CONCLUSION: Relationships between reader search, recognition and acceptance, and overall lung nodule detection rate can be studied with eye tracking. Radiologists appear to actively search less than half of the lung parenchyma, with substantial interreader variation in volume searched, fraction of nodules included within the search volume, sensitivity for nodules within the search volume, and overall detection rate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".