‘Eye-Tracking’ with Words for Alzheimer’s Disease Detection: Time Alignment of Words Enunciation with Image Regions During Image Description Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that results in cognitive decline, dementia, and eventually death. Diagnosing early signs of AD can help clinicians to improve the quality of life. OBJECTIVE: We developed a non-invasive approach to help neurologists and clinicians to distinguish probable AD patients and healthy controls (HC). METHODS: The patients' gaze points were followed based on the words they used to describe the Cookie Theft (CT) picture description task. We hypothesized that the timing of words enunciation aligns with the participant's eye movements. The moments that each word was spoken were then aligned with specific regions of the image. We then applied machine learning algorithms to classify probable AD and HC. We randomly selected 60 participants (30 AD and 30 HC) from the Dementia Bank (Pitt Corpus). RESULTS: Five main classifiers were applied to different features extracted from the recorded audio and participants' transcripts (AD and HC). Support vector machine and logistic regression had the highest accuracy (up to 80% and 78.33%, respectively) in three different experiments. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, point-of-gaze can be applied as a non-invasive and less expensive approach compared to other available methods (e.g., eye tracker devices) for early-stage AD diagnosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".