MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042925950 · doi:10.1002/aet2.10508

Exploring Eye‐tracking Technology as an Assessment Tool for Point‐of‐care Ultrasound Training

2020· article· en· W3042925950 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAEM Education and Training · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiology practices and education
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLIPSEye trackingGazeMedicineFixation (population genetics)Point of care ultrasoundMedical physicsUltrasoundComputer scienceRadiologySurgeryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Eye-tracking technology has emerged as a potentially useful learner assessment tool in several medical specialties. In the fields of general surgery and anesthesiology, it has been shown to reliably differentiate between different levels of expertise in procedural skills. In the field of radiology, it has been shown to be a valid assessment tool for diagnostic test interpretation. Current methods of competency assessment in point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) remain a challenge, because they require significant direct observation time by an instructor. The purpose of this study was to determine if eye-tracking technology can accurately distinguish between novice and experts in the interpretation of POCUS clips, specifically of the focused assessment using sonography in trauma (FAST) scan. METHODS: A convenience sample of medical students, residents, and emergency physicians from a single academic emergency department were invited to participate. Participants included both novices and experts in POCUS. Each participant completed a baseline questionnaire and viewed 16 video clips of a FAST ultrasound examination while their gaze patterns were recorded by a commercially available eye-tracking device. The primary outcome was total gaze time on the area of interest (AOI). Secondary outcomes included total time to fixation, mean number of fixations, and mean duration of first fixation on the AOI. RESULTS: Fifteen novices and 15 experts completed this study. For total gaze time on the AOI, experts fixated their gaze significantly longer than novices (75.8 ± 16.2 seconds vs. 56.6 ± 12.8 seconds, p = 0.001). Similarly, experts were significantly faster to fixate on the AOI and had a higher fixation count on the AOI (8.5 ± 4.0 seconds vs. 15.1 ± 6.8 seconds, p = 0.003; and 170 ± 30 vs. 143 ± 28 seconds, p = 0.016). There were no differences on the mean duration of first fixation on the AOI (0.42 ± 0.12 seconds vs. 0.39 ± 0.09 seconds, p = 0.467). CONCLUSION: Eye-tracking technology shows the potential to differentiate between experts and novices by their gaze patterns on video clips of FAST examinations. The total gaze time on the AOI may be a useful metric to help in the assessment of competency in POCUS image interpretation. In addition, the evaluation of gaze patterns may help educators identify causes of interpretation errors. Future studies are needed to further validate these metrics in a larger cohort.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.174
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it