Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Gregg Tracton

dblp:63/2668 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
0000-0001-7670-6550ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 3Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Medical and health informatics · 100%
Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper
Geometric modeling and processing · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Medical and health informatics › medical imaging
medical image analysis
0.012003
Deformable M-Reps for 3D Medical Image Segmentation · Int. J. Comput. Vis. 2003
Medical and health informatics › medical imaging › medical image analysis
medical image segmentation
0.012003
Deformable M-Reps for 3D Medical Image Segmentation · Int. J. Comput. Vis. 2003
Geometric modeling and processing › shape representation
medial representation
0.012003
Deformable M-Reps for 3D Medical Image Segmentation · Int. J. Comput. Vis. 2003
Geometric modeling and processing
shape modeling
0.012003
Deformable M-Reps for 3D Medical Image Segmentation · Int. J. Comput. Vis. 2003

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

m-reps · 0.1deformable models · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2016 Toward a better understanding of task demands, workload, and performance during physician-computer interactions
abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between (1) task demands and workload, (2) task demands and performance, and (3) workload and performance, all during physician-computer interactions in a simulated environment. METHODS: Two experiments were performed in 2 different electronic medical record (EMR) environments: WebCIS (n = 12) and Epic (n = 17). Each participant was instructed to complete a set of prespecified tasks on 3 routine clinical EMR-based scenarios: urinary tract infection (UTI), pneumonia (PN), and heart failure (HF). Task demands were quantified using behavioral responses (click and time analysis). At the end of each scenario, subjective workload was measured using the NASA-Task-Load Index (NASA-TLX). Physiological workload was measured using pupillary dilation and electroencephalography (EEG) data collected throughout the scenarios. Performance was quantified based on the maximum severity of omission errors. RESULTS: Data analysis indicated that the PN and HF scenarios were significantly more demanding than the UTI scenario for participants using WebCIS (P < .01), and that the PN scenario was significantly more demanding than the UTI and HF scenarios for participants using Epic (P < .01). In both experiments, the regression analysis indicated a significant relationship only between task demands and performance (P < .01). DISCUSSION: Results suggest that task demands as experienced by participants are related to participants' performance. Future work may support the notion that task demands could be used as a quality metric that is likely representative of performance, and perhaps patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: The present study is a reasonable next step in a systematic assessment of how task demands and workload are related to performance in EMR-evolving environments.
Lukasz Mazur, Prithima Mosaly, Carlton Moore, Elizabeth Comitz, Fei Yu 0013, Aaron D. Falchook, Michael J. Eblan, Lesley M. Hoyle, Gregg Tracton, Bhishamjit S. Chera, Lawrence B. Marks
J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc.9
2004 Prostate Shape Modeling Based on Principal Geodesic Analysis Bootstrapping
Erik Dam, P. Thomas Fletcher, Stephen M. Pizer, Gregg Tracton, Julian G. Rosenman
MICCAI (2)4
2003 Deformable M-Reps for 3D Medical Image Segmentation
Stephen M. Pizer, P. Thomas Fletcher, Sarang C. Joshi, Andrew Thall, James Z. Chen, Yonatan Fridman, Daniel S. Fritsch, A. Graham Gash, John M. Glotzer, Michael R. Jiroutek, Conglin Lu, Keith E. Muller, Gregg Tracton, Paul A. Yushkevich, Edward L. Chaney
Int. J. Comput. Vis.13
2001 Segmentation of Single-Figure Objects by Deformable M-reps
Stephen M. Pizer, Sarang C. Joshi, P. Thomas Fletcher, Martin Styner, Gregg Tracton, James Z. Chen
MICCAI5