Eye Movement Characteristics for Predicting a Transition to Psychosis: Longitudinal Changes and Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Substantive inquiry into the predictive power of eye movement (EM) features for clinical high-risk (CHR) conversion and their longitudinal trajectories is currently sparse. This study aimed to investigate the efficiency of machine learning predictive models relying on EM indices and examine the longitudinal alterations of these indices across the temporal continuum. STUDY DESIGN: EM assessments (fixation stability, free-viewing, and smooth pursuit tasks) were performed on 140 CHR and 98 healthy control participants at baseline, followed by a 1-year longitudinal observational study. We adopted Cox regression analysis and constructed random forest prediction models. We also employed linear mixed-effects models (LMMs) to analyze longitudinal changes of indices while stratifying by group and time. STUDY RESULTS: Of the 123 CHR participants who underwent a 1-year clinical follow-up, 25 progressed to full-blown psychosis, while 98 remained non-converters. Compared with the non-converters, the converters exhibited prolonged fixation durations, decreased saccade amplitudes during the free-viewing task; larger saccades, and reduced velocity gain during the smooth pursuit task. Furthermore, based on 4 baseline EM measures, a random forest model classified converters and non-converters with an accuracy of 0.776 (95% CI: 0.633, 0.882). Finally, LMMs demonstrated no significant longitudinal alterations in the aforementioned indices among converters after 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Aberrant EMs may precede psychosis onset and remain stable after 1 year, and applying eye-tracking technology combined with a modeling approach could potentially aid in predicting CHRs evolution into overt psychosis.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".