Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42856482›Full record

ArticleResearch square2026

Machine-learning classification of documented pedophilic sexual interest from eye-tracking patterns.

David Popovic, Kirsten Jordan, Peter Fromberger, Isabel Müller, Clara Weyer, Clara Vetter, Peter Falkai, Nikolaos Koutsouleris, Norbert Nedopil, Kolja Schiltz and 1 more

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in Research square, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

David PopovicMax Planck Institute of Psychiatry, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2367-9437
Kirsten JordanForensic Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center (UMG), Georg-August-University, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8083-5857
Peter FrombergerForensic Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center (UMG), Georg-August-University, Göttingen, Germany.
Isabel MüllerAsklepios Clinic for Forensic Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Göttingen, Germany.
Clara WeyerDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilian-University, Munich, Germany.
Clara VetterMax Planck Institute of Psychiatry, Munich, Germany.
Peter FalkaiMax Planck Institute of Psychiatry, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0284-2290
Nikolaos KoutsoulerisMax Planck Institute of Psychiatry, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6825-6262
Norbert NedopilDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilian-University, Munich, Germany.
Kolja SchiltzDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilian-University, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3788-3241
Jürgen Leo MüllerForensic Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center (UMG), Georg-August-University, Göttingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessment of pedophilic sexual interest is often embedded in crucial clinical and forensic contexts and could therefore benefit from non-invasive measures that complement clinical interviews and self-report. We investigated whether multivariate eye-tracking and behavioral patterns could classify documented pedophilic sexual interest at the individual level. The discovery sample comprised 124 adult men from five German sites, including 34 with and 90 without a documented pedophilia diagnosis according to ICD-10. Participants completed the Initial Orientation Task (IOT), Sexual Distractor Task (SDT), and Sexual Stimulus Rating task. Linear support vector machines were trained within a repeated nested cross-validation framework to predict pedophilia strictly on these eye-tracking features. The best-performing main model combined IOT and SDT, achieving 88.01% balanced accuracy, 88.24% sensitivity, 87.78% specificity, and an area under the curve of 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.99). Exploratory sparse modeling using only five IOT and four SDT features still yielded 87.65% balanced accuracy. This sparse model further classified all 32 participants in an independent healthy-control cohort as negative (100% specificity). Predictive features reflected relative attention to child versus adult stimuli and allocation of attention between distractors and cognitive targets. These findings support further investigation of eye-tracking measures as potential adjuncts to clinical assessment, in potentially high-stakes clinical and forensic decision-making. Prospective validation in representative cohorts containing both positive and negative cases is required to further establish generalizability and clinical utility.

Indexed as

eye trackingforensic psychiatrymachine learningpedophiliasupport vector machines

Identifiers

PMID42856482
PMCPMC13648830

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.