Suppr超能文献

量化医生和医学生在临床推理方面的差异:来自眼动追踪的证据。

Quantify difference between physicians and medical students in clinical reasoning: evidence from eye-tracking.

作者信息

Sun Lijun, Zhang Yao, Zheng Bin

机构信息

Department of Neurology, The Affiliated Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China.

Surgical Simulation Research Lab, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

出版信息

BMC Med Educ. 2025 Apr 16;25(1):546. doi: 10.1186/s12909-025-07134-6.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The assessment of clinical reasoning in health trainees is vital yet poses challenges. We tracked the eye movements of participants while they were reviewing a neurological case with the goal of finding behavioral evidence to improve health education.

METHODS

Eleven medical students and seventeen expert physicians were required to read a neurological case within a 150-second timeframe. The case included descriptive text, a brain CT scan, and an electrocardiogram (ECG). Participants completed a multiple-choice questions (MCQs) test after reading the case. Eye movements of participants in case reading on eleven patient-related information areas (PRIAs) were compared between experts and novices, contrasted with the remaining areas.

RESULTS

Experts spent significantly more time fixating on PRIAs during case reading than novices (42.1% vs. 29.2%, adjusted p = 0.010). Experts demonstrated significantly fewer gaze shifts between Text and CT images (2.0 times) and between CT and ECG images (2.4 times) compared to novices (6.2 and 5.4 times), with adjusted p-values of 0.002 and 0.019, respectively. A positive correlation was found between the fixation rate on PRIAs and MCQs outcome (r = 0.402, p = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

Eye-tracking provides rich and reliable data reflecting physicians' ability to gather patient-relevant information during patient assessment.

摘要

背景

对健康专业学员临床推理能力的评估至关重要,但也面临挑战。我们在参与者审阅一个神经科病例时跟踪他们的眼动,目的是找到行为证据以改进健康教育。

方法

要求11名医学生和17名专家医生在150秒内阅读一个神经科病例。该病例包括描述性文本、脑部CT扫描和一份心电图(ECG)。参与者在阅读病例后完成多项选择题(MCQ)测试。比较了专家和新手在阅读病例时在11个与患者相关信息区域(PRIA)上的眼动情况,并与其余区域进行对比。

结果

在病例阅读过程中,专家注视PRIA的时间显著多于新手(42.1%对29.2%,校正p = 0.010)。与新手相比,专家在文本和CT图像之间(2.0次)以及CT和ECG图像之间(2.4次)的注视转移明显更少(分别为6.2次和5.4次),校正p值分别为0.002和0.019。发现PRIA上的注视率与MCQ结果之间存在正相关(r = 0.402,p = 0.034)。

结论

眼动追踪提供了丰富且可靠的数据,反映了医生在患者评估过程中收集与患者相关信息的能力。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f308/12001669/9729088ed966/12909_2025_7134_Fig1_HTML.jpg

相似文献

2
The Development of Visual Expertise in ECG Interpretation: An Eye-Tracking Augmented Re Situ Interview Approach.
Teach Learn Med. 2021 Jun-Jul;33(3):258-269. doi: 10.1080/10401334.2020.1844009. Epub 2020 Dec 10.
8
Working memory, reasoning, and expertise in medicine-insights into their relationship using functional neuroimaging.
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2016 Dec;21(5):935-952. doi: 10.1007/s10459-015-9649-2. Epub 2015 Nov 4.
9
Quantifying Novice and Expert Differences in Visual Diagnostic Reasoning in Veterinary Pathology Using Eye-Tracking Technology.
J Vet Med Educ. 2018 Fall;45(3):295-306. doi: 10.3138/jvme.1115-187r. Epub 2018 Jan 18.

本文引用的文献

1
Webcam-based eye-tracking to measure visual expertise of medical students during online histology training.
GMS J Med Educ. 2023 Sep 15;40(5):Doc60. doi: 10.3205/zma001642. eCollection 2023.
2
Clinical reasoning in pharmacy: What do eye movements and verbal protocols tell us about the processing of a case task?
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2024 Mar;29(1):45-65. doi: 10.1007/s10459-023-10242-x. Epub 2023 Jun 5.
3
Medical imaging training with eye movement modeling examples: A randomized controlled study.
Med Teach. 2023 Aug;45(8):918-924. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2023.2189538. Epub 2023 Mar 21.
4
Medical Dispute Cases Caused by Errors in Clinical Reasoning: An Investigation and Analysis.
Healthcare (Basel). 2022 Nov 7;10(11):2224. doi: 10.3390/healthcare10112224.
5
6
Evaluating the Clinical Reasoning of Student Health Professionals in Placement and Simulation Settings: A Systematic Review.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jan 14;19(2):936. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19020936.
8
Embracing complexity with systems thinking in general practitioners' clinical reasoning helps handling uncertainty.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2021 Oct;27(5):1175-1181. doi: 10.1111/jep.13549. Epub 2021 Feb 16.
9
Clinical Reasoning as a Core Competency.
Acad Med. 2020 Aug;95(8):1166-1171. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003027.
10
Clinical Reasoning Assessment Methods: A Scoping Review and Practical Guidance.
Acad Med. 2019 Jun;94(6):902-912. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002618.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验