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

5Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sun, L., Zhang, Y., & Zheng, B. (2025). Quantify difference between physicians and medical students in clinical reasoning: evidence from eye-tracking. BMC Medical Education, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07134-6

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free