Oculomotor analysis to assess brain health: preliminary findings from a longitudinal study of multiple sclerosis using novel tablet-based eye-tracking software
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of evidence supports the link between eye movement anomalies and brain health. Indeed, the oculomotor system is composed of a diverse network of cortical and subcortical structures and circuits that are susceptible to a variety of degenerative processes. Here we show preliminary findings from the baseline measurements of an ongoing longitudinal cohort study in MS participants, designed to determine if disease and cognitive status can be estimated and tracked with high accuracy based on eye movement parameters alone. Using a novel gaze-tracking technology that can reliably and accurately track eye movements with good precision without the need for infrared cameras, using only an iPad Pro embedded camera, we show in this cross-sectional study that several eye movement parameters significantly correlated with clinical outcome measures of interest. Eye movement parameters were extracted from fixation, pro-saccade, anti-saccade, and smooth pursuit visual tasks, whereas the clinical outcome measures were the scores of several disease assessment tools and standard cognitive tests such as the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), Brief International Cognitive Assessment for MS (BICAMS), the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC) and the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT). Furthermore, partial least squares regression analyses show that a small set of oculomotor parameters can explain up to 84% of the variance of the clinical outcome measures. Taken together, these findings not only replicate previously known associations between eye movement parameters and clinical scores, this time using a novel mobile-based technology, but also the notion that interrogating the oculomotor system with a novel eye-tracking technology can inform us of disease severity, as well as the cognitive status of MS participants.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".