Comparing search patterns in digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography: an eye tracking 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
As a promising imaging modality, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) leads to better diagnostic performance than traditional full-field digital mammograms (FFDM) alone. DBT allows different planes of the breast to be visualized, reducing occlusion from overlapping tissue. Although DBT is gaining popularity, best practices for search strategies in this medium are unclear. Eye tracking allowed us to describe search patterns adopted by radiologists searching DBT and FFDM images. Eleven radiologists examined eight DBT and FFDM cases. Observers marked suspicious masses with mouse clicks. Eye position was recorded at 1000 Hz and was coregistered with slice/depth plane as the radiologist scrolled through the DBT images, allowing a 3-D representation of eye position. Hit rate for masses was higher for tomography cases than 2-D cases and DBT led to lower false positive rates. However, search duration was much longer for DBT cases than FFDM. DBT was associated with longer fixations but similar saccadic amplitude compared with FFDM. When comparing radiologists' eye movements to a previous study, which tracked eye movements as radiologists read chest CT, we found DBT viewers did not align with previously identified "driller" or "scanner" strategies, although their search strategy most closely aligns with a type of vigorous drilling strategy.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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