MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390083510 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igad104.2745

DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT SCREENING TOOL BASED ON EYE-TRACKING TECHNOLOGY

2023· article· en· W4390083510 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elyse Couch, Wenhan Zhang, Emmanuelle Bélanger, Nicole DePasquale, Emily Gabois, Megan Shepherd- Banigan, Courtney H. Van Houtven, Terrie Wetle

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionSet (abstract data type)DemographicsDecision treeCognitive impairmentTest (biology)PsychologyMedicineArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives This study aimed to develop a cognitive impairment screening tool based on eye tracking technology (ET-CIS), and apply ET-CIS to community-dwelling older adults to evaluated its screening performance. Methods ET-CIS were developed based on through systematic review, pre-experiments and expert consultation. We recruited older people in the community from July 2022 to November 2022 and collected data including demographics data, Montreal cognitive assessment, the mini-mental state examination, ET-CIS. The t-test and correlation analysis were conducted to screen out statistically significant parameters with of ET-CIS. The screening models were constructed using standardized score assignment, binary logistics regression analysis, and decision tree model in the training set, and were applied in the validation to evaluate the screening performance. The best model was selected as the final scoring model. Results ET-CIS was constructed including applicable objects, pre-assessment preparation, screening dimensions, specific experiments and parameters. A total of 301 subjects were included, including 163 in the cognitively normal group and 138 in the cognitive impairment group. The results showed that the decision tree model results showed that the sensitivity of the training set was 0.752 and the sensitivity of the validation set was 0.818. We use the decision tree model as the final model. Conclusions In this study, ET-CIS was developed including the evaluation of memory function, executive function, visuospatial function and abstract function. The screening model of ET-CIS in community-dwelling older people showed good discrimination, which demonstrated it could be used to effectively screen cognitive impairment in the community in the future.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.324 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207