Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31044392›Full record

ArticleJournal of digital imaging2019

Eye Tracking for Deep Learning Segmentation Using Convolutional Neural Networks.

J N Stember, H Celik, E Krupinski, P D Chang, S Mutasa, B J Wood, A Lignelli, G Moonis, L H Schwartz, S Jambawalikar and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. The Use of Machine Learning in Eye Tracking Studies in Medical Imaging: A Review.IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

J N StemberDepartment of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center - NYPH, New York, NY, 10032, USA. joestember@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-3169-9590
H CelikThe National Institutes of Health, Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.
E KrupinskiDepartment of Radiology & Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
P D ChangDepartment of Radiology, University of California, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA.
S MutasaDepartment of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center - NYPH, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
B J WoodThe National Institutes of Health, Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.
A LignelliDepartment of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center - NYPH, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
G MoonisDepartment of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center - NYPH, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
L H SchwartzDepartment of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center - NYPH, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
S JambawalikarDepartment of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center - NYPH, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
U BagciCenter for Research in Computer Vision, University of Central Florida, 4328 Scorpius St. HEC 221, Orlando, FL, 32816, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deep learning with convolutional neural networks (CNNs) has experienced tremendous growth in multiple healthcare applications and has been shown to have high accuracy in semantic segmentation of medical (e.g., radiology and pathology) images. However, a key barrier in the required training of CNNs is obtaining large-scale and precisely annotated imaging data. We sought to address the lack of annotated data with eye tracking technology. As a proof of principle, our hypothesis was that segmentation masks generated with the help of eye tracking (ET) would be very similar to those rendered by hand annotation (HA). Additionally, our goal was to show that a CNN trained on ET masks would be equivalent to one trained on HA masks, the latter being the current standard approach. Step 1: Screen captures of 19 publicly available radiologic images of assorted structures within various modalities were analyzed. ET and HA masks for all regions of interest (ROIs) were generated from these image datasets. Step 2: Utilizing a similar approach, ET and HA masks for 356 publicly available T1-weighted postcontrast meningioma images were generated. Three hundred six of these image + mask pairs were used to train a CNN with U-net-based architecture. The remaining 50 images were used as the independent test set. Step 1: ET and HA masks for the nonneurological images had an average Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of 0.86 between each other. Step 2: Meningioma ET and HA masks had an average DSC of 0.85 between each other. After separate training using both approaches, the ET approach performed virtually identically to HA on the test set of 50 images. The former had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.88, while the latter had AUC of 0.87. ET and HA predictions had trimmed mean DSCs compared to the original HA maps of 0.73 and 0.74, respectively. These trimmed DSCs between ET and HA were found to be statistically equivalent with a p value of 0.015. We have demonstrated that ET can create segmentation masks suitable for deep learning semantic segmentation. Future work will integrate ET to produce masks in a faster, more natural manner that distracts less from typical radiology clinical workflow.

Indexed as

Deep LearningNeural Networks, ComputerEye MovementsHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMeningeal NeoplasmsMeningesMeningiomaArtificial intelligenceDeep learningEye trackingMeningiomaSegmentation

Identifiers

PMID31044392
PMCPMC6646645

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.