Classification of Alzheimer's Disease with Deep Learning on Eye-tracking Data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing research has shown the potential of classifying Alzheimer's Disease (AD) from eye-tracking (ET) data with classifiers that rely on task-specific engineered features. In this paper, we investigate whether we can improve on existing results by using a Deep Learning classifier trained end-to-end on raw ET data. This classifier (VTNet) uses a GRU and a CNN in parallel to leverage both visual (V) and temporal (T) representations of ET data and was previously used to detect user confusion while processing visual displays. A main challenge in applying VTNet to our target AD classification task is that the available ET data sequences are much longer than those used in the previous confusion detection task, pushing the limits of what is manageable by LSTM-based models. We discuss how we address this challenge and show that VTNet outperforms the state-of-the-art approaches in AD classification, providing encouraging evidence on the generality of this model to make predictions from ET data.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it