ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2025
Development of oculomotor digital biomarkers using clinical examinations as "Ground Truth".
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of six computerized eye-tracking tests against a clinician-administered oculomotor exam. Methods: A total of 53 participants completed the horizontal random saccade (HRS), circular smooth pursuit (CSP), horizontal smooth pursuit (HSP), vertical smooth pursuit (VSP), horizontal saccade (HS), and vertical saccade (VS) oculomotor tests on the computerized system. A board-certified neurologist with 16 years of experience also conducted an oculomotor examination to mirror eye movement patterns. Results: Data analysis included a series of single-block logistic regressions to examine the scoring of the six eye-tracking tests (RightEye, LLC) to predict clinician-rated eye movement classifications (i.e., normal or abnormal). The computerized battery demonstrated concurrent validity for each of the six oculomotor tests as they significantly predicted the neurologist's classification. The sensitivity and specificity of the six eye-tracking tests ranged from 70.4 to 93.5% and from 84.6 to 90.5%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of the computerized tests ranged from good (78.8%) to excellent (92.3%). The area under the curve (AUC) analysis for the eye-tracking tests yielded values ranging from 0.734 (VSs) to 0.921 (HRSs). Conclusion: The results suggest that each of the six computerized eye-tracking tests accurately distinguished between normal and abnormal oculomotor movements.
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.