Analysis of neonatal resuscitation using eye tracking: a pilot study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Visual attention (VA) is important for situation awareness and decision-making. Eye tracking can be used to analyse the VA of healthcare providers. No study has examined eye tracking during neonatal resuscitation. OBJECTIVE: To test the use of eye tracking to examine VA during neonatal resuscitation. METHODS: Six video recordings were obtained using eye tracking glasses worn by resuscitators during the first 5 min of neonatal resuscitation. Videos were analysed to obtain (i) areas of interest (AOIs), (ii) time spent on each AOI and (iii) frequency of saccades between AOIs. RESULTS: Five videos were of acceptable quality and analysed. Only 35% of VA was directed at the infant, with 33% at patient monitors and gauges. There were frequent saccades (0.45/s) and most involved patient monitors. CONCLUSION: During neonatal resuscitation, VA is often directed away from the infant towards patient monitors. Eye tracking can be used to analyse human performance during neonatal resuscitation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it