ArticleScientific reports2024
Classification of short and long term mild traumatic brain injury using computerized eye tracking.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- MEYELens: An affordable, open-source, 3D-printable eyewear platform for pupillometry and gaze tracking.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Altered GABAergic signaling and chloride homeostasis in eye movement circuits during late neurodevelopment: implications for Alzheimer's disease therapy.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- The performance ceiling: why clinical data is insufficient for precision prognosis in concussion.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate, and objective diagnosis of brain injury remains challenging. This study evaluated useability and reliability of computerized eye-tracker assessments (CEAs) designed to assess oculomotor function, visual attention/processing, and selective attention in recent mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), persistent post-concussion syndrome (PPCS), and controls. Tests included egocentric localisation, fixation-stability, smooth-pursuit, saccades, Stroop, and the vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR). Thirty-five healthy adults performed the CEA battery twice to assess useability and test-retest reliability. In separate experiments, CEA data from 55 healthy, 20 mTBI, and 40 PPCS adults were used to train a machine learning model to categorize participants into control, mTBI, or PPCS classes. Intraclass correlation coefficients demonstrated moderate (ICC > .50) to excellent (ICC > .98) reliability (p < .05) and satisfactory CEA compliance. Machine learning modelling categorizing participants into groups of control, mTBI, and PPCS performed reasonably (balanced accuracy control: 0.83, mTBI: 0.66, and PPCS: 0.76, AUC-ROC: 0.82). Key outcomes were the VOR (gaze stability), fixation (vertical error), and pursuit (total error, vertical gain, and number of saccades). The CEA battery was reliable and able to differentiate healthy, mTBI, and PPCS patients reasonably well. While promising, the diagnostic model accuracy should be improved with a larger training dataset before use in clinical environments.
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.