Diagnostic value of saccades in mild cognitive impairment: a community-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis and assessment of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are essential. The efficacy of saccades in the detection of MCI lacks validation through large-scale clinical trials. METHODS: All eligible participants underwent saccadic assessment in four tasks and a cognitive assessment. MCI diagnoses were made on the basis of clinical indicators and MRI by experienced physicians. The physicians were blinded to the saccade experiments, and the operators of the saccade experiments were blind to the diagnosis of physicians. The classification models based on machine learning were constructed for assessing the diagnostic accuracy of MCI based on saccadic parameters. RESULTS: Of the 559 residents who consented to participate, 383 (153 with MCI and 230 controls) were completely assessed. The classification model trained by saccadic parameters achieved high accuracy in dissociating MCI and control with an area under the curve (AUROC) of 0.945 (95% CI, 0.924-0.964), sensitivity of 0.824 (95% CI, 0.769-0.886) and specificity of 0.904 (95% CI, 0.867-0.935). The parameters of the memory-guided and antisaccade tasks demonstrated better diagnostic efficacy. The saccade model also exhibited a good diagnostic value in patients with borderline cognition, being defined by the score of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). When the borderline cognition was defined as 23-27 of the MoCA score, the diagnosing accuracy of mild cognitive impairment based on saccadic parameters resulted in AUROC of 0.911 (95% CI, 0.836-0.972), sensitivity of 0.929 (95% CI, 0.762-1.000) and specificity of 0.796 (95% CI, 0.718-0.863). CONCLUSIONS: Saccades can distinguish MCI from controls with great accuracy, offering a sensitive and objective diagnostic aid of MCI, especially in participants with borderline cognition.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".