Detecting performance difficulty of learners in colonoscopy: Evidence from eye-tracking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eye-tracking can help decode the intricate control mechanism in human performance. In healthcare, physicians-in-training require extensive practice to improve their healthcare skills. When a trainee encounters any difficulty in the practice, they will need feedback from experts to improve their performance. Personal feedback is time-consuming and subjected to bias. In this study, we tracked the eye movements of trainees during their colonoscopic performance in simulation. We examined changes in eye movement behavior during the moments of navigation loss (MNL), a signature sign for task difficulty during colonoscopy, and tested whether deep learning algorithms can detect the MNL by feeding data from eye-tracking. Human eye gaze and pupil characteristics were learned and verified by the deep convolutional generative adversarial networks (DCGANs); the generated data were fed to the Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks with three different data feeding strategies to classify MNLs from the entire colonoscopic procedure. Outputs from deep learning were compared to the expert's judgment on the MNLs based on colonoscopic videos. The best classification outcome was achieved when we fed human eye data with 1000 synthesized eye data, where accuracy (91.80%), sensitivity (90.91%), and specificity (94.12%) were optimized. This study built an important foundation for our work of developing an education system for training healthcare skills using simulation.
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 | 0.020 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".