发表机构
Fudan University; Shanghai Key Laboratory of MICCAI; Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University; Shanghai Collaborative Innovation Center of Endoscopy; Zhejiang University; Shanghai Institute for Advanced Study, Zhejiang University; The University of Manchester（复旦大学; 上海MICCAI重点实验室; 复旦大学附属中山医院; 上海消化内镜协同创新中心; 浙江大学; 浙江大学上海高等研究院; 曼彻斯特大学）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本研究通过回顾性配对视频和前瞻性实时眼动追踪实验，发现结肠镜检查中假阳性CADe提示频繁吸引内镜医师注视且注意力持续超提示可见时间，提示需在CADe评估和设计中考虑注意力负担。
AI 中文摘要
假阳性计算机辅助检测（CADe）提示可能在结肠镜检查期间分散内镜医师的注意力，然而单个提示的注意力影响仍不清楚。我们采用事件锁定眼动追踪，在互补的回顾性和前瞻性研究中量化注视吸引和注意力占用。在回顾性配对视频实验中，3名高级内镜医师和2名新手内镜医师观看了60段有无CADe的结肠镜视频。前瞻性研究记录了9名高级内镜医师执行的42次实时CADe辅助结肠镜检查期间的注视情况。专家标注的病变窗口之外的筛选CADe提示被归类为假阳性伪影事件。假阳性提示在回顾性观察中吸引了48.6%（68/140）的注视，在前瞻性事件中吸引了65.2%（533/817）的注视。在完全恢复的吸引事件中，回顾性研究的中位注意力占用持续时间为1000毫秒，前瞻性研究为1100毫秒。相应的中位提示持续时间为33毫秒和267毫秒，中位时间放大倍数分别为17.55倍和5.15倍。在配对回顾性比较中，可见的伪影提示比同坐标无辅助参考更吸引注视接近提示区域。次要回顾性分析显示，有无CADe的病变注视识别率均较高（98.0%对99.0%）。首次注视进入病变区域的时间在CADe下提前了147.8毫秒。在受控和实时临床环境中，假阳性CADe提示频繁捕获注视，且注意力持续超过提示可见时间。这些发现支持在CADe评估和设计中考虑提示相关的注意力负担。
英文摘要
False-positive computer-aided detection (CADe) prompts may divert endoscopists' attention during colonoscopy, yet the attentional impact of individual prompts remains unclear. We used event-locked eye tracking to quantify gaze attraction and attention occupation in complementary retrospective and prospective studies. In a retrospective paired-video experiment, 3 senior and 2 novice endoscopists viewed 60 colonoscopy videos with and without CADe. The prospective study recorded gaze during 42 real-time CADe-assisted colonoscopies performed by 9 senior endoscopists. Screened CADe prompts outside expert-annotated lesion windows were classified as false-positive artifact events. False-positive prompts attracted gaze in 48.6% (68/140) of retrospective observations and 65.2% (533/817) of prospective events. Among attraction events with complete recovery, median attention occupation lasted 1000 ms in the retrospective study and 1100 ms in the prospective study. Corresponding median prompt durations were 33 ms and 267 ms, with median time amplifications of 17.55-fold and 5.15-fold, respectively. In paired retrospective comparisons, visible artifact prompts drew gaze closer to the prompted region than did the same-coordinate unassisted reference. Secondary retrospective analyses showed high lesion gaze recognition without and with CADe (98.0% versus 99.0%). First gaze entry into lesion regions occurred 147.8 ms earlier with CADe. Across controlled and real-time clinical settings, false-positive CADe prompts frequently captured gaze, with attention persisting beyond prompt visibility. These findings support considering prompt-related attentional burden in CADe evaluation and design.
Comments21 pages,3 figures
