MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413979871 · doi:10.1109/tim.2025.3606068

Regular RGB-Video-Based Eye Movement Assessment for Parkinson’s Disease

2025· article· en· W4413979871 on OpenAlexafffund
Jiaxun Gao, Luke Bidulka, Martin J. McKeown, Z. Jane Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsParkinson's diseaseComputer scienceComputer visionMovement (music)Eye movementRGB color modelArtificial intelligencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineDiseasePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eye-tracking, as an accessible, non-invasive technology, offers valuable insights into the human motor and cognitive functions, and it is an essential tool in studying neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s disease (PD). While current eye movement assessment for PD diagnosis mainly relies on high-end, specialized eye-tracker equipment, this work demonstrates that advanced deep learning methods using RGB-video from regular cameras (with 60 fps sampling rate, 1920 × 1080 image resolution) can provide promising performance on PD eye movement assessment. Our contributions are twofold: First, we show the potential and feasibility of using readily accessible, regular RGB camera data for PD eye movement assessment, making it more attractive for wide applicability in practice. Second, we propose a novel PD classification model by exploring temporal eye movement patterns from regular RGB-video data, and it can achieve performance comparable to or even better than current standard methods reliant on commercial, specialized eye-tracking equipment. The results highlight the promise of regular RGB-video-based PD assessment and the potential for more accessible diagnostic tools in PD studies.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and MeasurementSame topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207