Eye tracking in digital pathology: A comprehensive literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eye tracking has been used for decades in attempt to understand the cognitive processes of individuals. From memory access to problem-solving to decision-making, such insight has the potential to improve workflows and the education of students to become experts in relevant fields. Until recently, the traditional use of microscopes in pathology made eye tracking exceptionally difficult. However, the digital revolution of pathology from conventional microscopes to digital whole slide images allows for new research to be conducted and information to be learned with regards to pathologist visual search patterns and learning experiences. This has the promise to make pathology education more efficient and engaging, ultimately creating stronger and more proficient generations of pathologists to come. The goal of this review on eye tracking in pathology is to characterize and compare the visual search patterns of pathologists. The PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched using 'pathology' AND 'eye tracking' synonyms. A total of 22 relevant full-text articles published up to and including 2023 were identified and included in this review. Thematic analysis was conducted to organize each study into one or more of the 10 themes identified to characterize the visual search patterns of pathologists: (1) effect of experience, (2) fixations, (3) zooming, (4) panning, (5) saccades, (6) pupil diameter, (7) interpretation time, (8) strategies, (9) machine learning, and (10) education. Expert pathologists were found to have higher diagnostic accuracy, fewer fixations, and shorter interpretation times than pathologists with less experience. Further, literature on eye tracking in pathology indicates that there are several visual strategies for diagnostic interpretation of digital pathology images, but no evidence of a superior strategy exists. The educational implications of eye tracking in pathology have also been explored but the effect of teaching novices how to search as an expert remains unclear. In this article, the main challenges and prospects of eye tracking in pathology are briefly discussed along with their implications to the field.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".