ABSTRACT
Eye-tracking is used widely to investigate attention and cognitive processes while performing tasks in electronic medical record (EMR) systems. We explored a novel application of eye tracking to collect training data for a machine learning-based clinical decision support tool that predicts which patient data are likely to be relevant for a clinical task. Specifically, we investigated in a laboratory setting the accuracy of eye tracking compared to manual annotation for inferring which patient data in the EMR are judged to be relevant by physicians. We evaluated several methods for processing gaze points that were recorded using a low-cost eye tracking device. Our results show that eye-tracking achieves accuracy and precision of 69% and 53% respectively compared to manual annotation and are promising for machine learning. The methods for processing gaze points and scripts that we developed offer a first step in developing novel uses for eye-tracking for clinical decision support.
LAY SUMMARY In the context of electronic medical record systems, eye-tracking is used extensively to explore attention and cognitive processes. We investigated a novel application of eye tracking to collect training data for machine learning-based clinical decision support. We evaluated several methods for processing gaze points that were recorded using a low-cost eye tracking device. The methods for processing gaze points and scripts that we developed offer a first step in developing novel uses for eye-tracking for clinical decision support.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The research reported in this publication was supported by the National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health under award number numbers R01 LM012095 and T15 LM007059, and a Provost Fellowship in Intelligent Systems at the University of Pittsburgh (awarded to M.T.). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
We did not recruit patients in this study. The patient electronic medical record (EMR) data that we used were captured or documented as part of routine clinical care. The EMR data were de-identified and the University of Pittsburgh IRB determined that the study constitutes non-human subjects research and waived the need for informed patient consent. The study was approved by the University of Pittsburgh IRB under protocol PRO14020588.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos