ReviewAlzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
Eye tracking as a diagnostic tool in Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment, and related dementias: a systematic review.
Review in Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utility of Tablet-Based Eye Tracking for Early Screening of Poststroke Cognitive Impairment: Diagnostic Cohort Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Towards a Multidimensional Model of Neurocognitive Disorders (MOND Model): Integrating Evidence from a Critical Review into a Model for Future Research.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Enhancing Early Detection of Alzheimer's Disease: An Ensemble Model for Multi-Domain Cognitive Assessment Using Voice and Video.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Eye tracking as a diagnostic tool in Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment, and related dementias: a systematic review.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Review
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
Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology begins years before symptoms emerge, making early detection essential. Eye tracking offers a rapid, non-invasive means of identifying early cognitive decline through oculomotor disturbances. This Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)- and Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO)-guided systematic review evaluated studies from PubMed, ACM Digital Library, and Google Scholar on eye tracking in mild cognitive impairment (MCI), AD, and related dementias. Seventy-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Antisaccade tasks consistently distinguished AD and MCI from healthy controls, with impaired accuracy, longer latencies, and reduced gain. Non-saccadic paradigms (e.g., visual search, free viewing) indicated diminished exploratory behavior in AD, with mixed findings in MCI. A major limitation was the lack of cohorts defined by current biological criteria, hindering clinical translation. In a subset, classical machine-learning (ML) models and deep neural networks reported accuracies of 0.72 to 0.97. Overall, antisaccade tasks show strong promise for early AD screening; future work should adopt biologically defined cohorts and scalable, accessible eye-tracking technologies. Highlights: Antisaccade tasks best distinguish AD and MCI from HCs.Visual search/free-view tasks showed diminished exploratory behavior in AD.Most studies lack biomarker-based AD criteria, creating a major research gap.
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.