ArticleScientific reports2025
Validation of reading as a predictor of mild cognitive impairment.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cognitive function and eye movement patterns during reading tasks in older adults.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a neurocognitive disorder that precedes Alzheimer's disease, but also other types of dementia. The use of reading tasks, when paired with eye-tracking technology, has been suggested as an effective biomarker for identifying MCI and distinguishing it from healthy individuals. The objective of this study was twofold: (1) to explore the disparities in eye movements during reading between individuals with MCI and healthy controls and train a predictive model to detect MCI, and (2) to validate these findings on a large independent dataset. We developed features for a model designed to automatically detect cognitive impairment based on the data of 115 subjects; 62 cognitively impaired and 53 healthy controls. Each subject was subjected to a neurological evaluation, a thorough psychological analysis, and completed a brief reading exercise while their eye movements were monitored using an eye-tracker. Their eye movements were characterised by patterns of saccades and fixations and were analysed across both groups. Several characteristics showed very high statistical significance, indicating differences in gaze behaviour between the groups. These characteristics were then employed to develop a machine learning model that differentiates cognitively impaired individuals from healthy controls. For the validation purposes, we ran a separate study with 99 new subjects using the same experimental design. The model reached about 75% AUROC. These results confirm that reading tasks can serve as a basis for early detection of MCI; however, complementary eye-tracking tasks are needed to further increase the detection accuracy.
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.