Task-Evoked Pupillary Response as a Potential Biomarker of Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pupil dilation functions as a proxy for cognitive effort and can be measured through automated pupillometry. The aim of this scoping review is to examine how individuals with cognitive impairment differ in task-evoked pupillary responses relative to cognitively healthy individuals. A systematic literature search across six databases was conducted to identify studies examining changes in pupillary responses evoked by cognitive tasks comparing patients with dementia to healthy controls. Eight articles met inclusion criteria and were included for review. Differences in task-evoked pupillary response between cognitively impaired and cognitively healthy participants were observed across studies. Pupil dilation is decreased in patients with Alzheimer's Disease compared to controls, with no difference observed in patients with mild cognitive impairment. A mild, non-significant trend towards reduced pupil dilation in patients with either Parkinson's Disease or Dementia with Lewy Bodies suggests a similar but less pronounced effect than in AD patients. Further research is required to examine the utility of task-evoked pupillary responses as a potential biomarker indexing cognitive decline in individuals transitioning to mild cognitive impairment and/or dementia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".