MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reading and Mild Cognitive Impairment

2019· article· en· W3005952083 on OpenAlexaff
Kristina Lundholm Fors, Malin Antonsson, Dimitrios Kokkinakis, Kathleen Fraser

Bibliographic record

VenueExLing Conferences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEye trackingCognitive impairmentCognitionEye movementReading (process)AudiologySession (web analytics)Computer scienceCognitive psychologyPsychologyArtificial intelligencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present study, we investigated the discriminatory power of eye-tracking features in distinguishing between individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and healthy controls (HC). The eye movements of the study participants were recorded at two different time points, 18 months apart. Using a machine learning approach with leave-one-out cross-validation, we were able to discriminate between the groups with 73.6 AUC. However, somewhat surprisingly the classification was less successful using data from the second recording session, which might be attributed to the non-static nature of cognitive status. Still, the outcome suggests that eye-tracking measures can be exploited as useful markers of MCI.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExLing ConferencesSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207