Influence of Experience and Training on Dental Students’ Examination Performance Regarding Panoramic Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physician training has greatly benefitted from insights gained in understanding the manner in which experts search medical images for abnormalities. The aims of this study were to compare the search patterns of 30 fourth-year dental students and 15 certified oral and maxillofacial radiologists (OMRs) over panoramic images and to determine the most robust variables for future studies involving image visualization. Eye tracking was used to capture the eye movement patterns of both subject groups when examining 20 panoramic images classified as normal or abnormal. Abnormal images were further subclassified as having an obvious, intermediate, or subtle abnormality. The images were presented in random order to each participant, and data were collected on duration of the participants' observations and total distance tracked, time to first eye fixation, and total duration and numbers of fixations on and off the area of interest (AOI). The results showed that the OMRs covered greater distances than the dental students (p<0.001) for normal images. For images of pathosis, the OMRs required less total time (p<0.001), made fewer eye fixations (p<0.01) with fewer saccades (p<0.001) than the students, and required less time before making the first fixation on the AOI (p<0.01). Furthermore, the OMRs covered less distance (p<0.001) than the dental students for obvious pathoses. For investigations of images of pathosis, time to first fixation is a robust parameter in predicting ability. For images with different levels of subtlety of pathoses, the number of fixations, total time spent, and numbers of revisits are important parameters to analyze when comparing observer groups with different levels of experience.
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 | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".