MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111409426 · doi:10.1002/alz.043869

Automatic analysis of Alzheimer’s disease: Evaluation of eye movements in natural conversations

2020· article· en· W3111409426 on OpenAlexaffabout
Arlen Perez, Sylvie Ratté

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEye movementGazeRecallArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceSupport vector machinePresentation (obstetrics)Sensitivity (control systems)PsychologyPattern recognition (psychology)MedicineCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Among the studies concerned with the description of changes in nonverbal communications, some authors have established a link between eye movement and AD [1]. In this presentation, we introduce a method to automatically analyze and evaluate the performance of AD patients during natural conversations through eye movements. This project was conducted as part of a research program funded by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada ( "Pattern recognition for the detection and monitoring of verbal and non‐verbal alterations in Alzheimer's disease", RGPIN‐2018‐05714). Method We analyzed 22 videos in the Carolinas Conversations Collection, a dataset where conversations with elderly people were recorded. These videos have 370 minutes approximately, with 17 subjects, 9 healthy controls (HC), and 8 AD patients. We tracked the eye movements through time in two ways, as a vector [Figure 1] and as landmarks on the eyes [Figure 2]. Then we trained classifiers to distinguish HCs and AD subjects, and performed the experiments using gaze vectors and eye landmarks as features (individually, combined). Result We obtain the performance of the classifiers measuring the accuracy, precision, recall, and ROC curve. Our results show that the combination of eye landmarks and gaze vectors features is strongly related with the AD condition. The classification sensitivity (ROC) is 77% performing with gaze vector features, 85% using the eyes landmarks in 3D, and combining both, we obtained 88% sensitivity (HC vs. AD) [Table 1]. Conclusion The automatic analysis of the eye movements could be a useful tool for clinicians and researchers studying early signs of AD. In future work, we will analyze facial expressions in order to study the link between verbal features (related to speech and content) and non‐verbal features (facial expressions, eye movements), and their correlations with AD. [1] Fernández G, Mandolesi P, Rotstein NP, Colombo O, Agamennoni O, Politi LE. Eye movement alterations during reading in patients with early Alzheimer disease. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54:8345–52. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.13‐12877.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207