ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2023
Computer-aided autism diagnosis using visual attention models and eye-tracking: replication and improvement proposal.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAutism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) diagnosis can be aided by approaches based on eye-tracking signals. Recently, the feasibility of building Visual Attention Models (VAMs) from features extracted from visual stimuli and their use for classifying cases and controls has been demonstrated using Neural Networks and Support Vector Machines. The present work has three aims: 1) to evaluate whether the trained classifier from the previous study was generalist enough to classify new samples with a new stimulus; 2) to replicate the previously approach to train a new classifier with a new dataset; 3) to evaluate the performance of classifiers obtained by a new classification algorithm (Random Forest) using the previous and the current datasets.
methodsThe previously approach was replicated with a new stimulus and new sample, 44 from the Typical Development group and 33 from the ASD group. After the replication, Random Forest classifier was tested to substitute Neural Networks algorithm.
resultsThe test with the trained classifier reached an AUC of 0.56, suggesting that the trained classifier requires retraining of the VAMs when changing the stimulus. The replication results reached an AUC of 0.71, indicating the potential of generalization of the approach for aiding ASD diagnosis, as long as the stimulus is similar to the originally proposed. The results achieved with Random Forest were superior to those achieved with the original approach, with an average AUC of 0.95 for the previous dataset and 0.74 for the new dataset.
conclusionIn summary, the results of the replication experiment were satisfactory, which suggests the robustness of the approach and the VAM-based approaches feasibility to aid in ASD diagnosis. The proposed method change improved the classification performance. Some limitations are discussed and additional studies are encouraged to test other conditions and scenarios.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.