ArticleResearch square2026
Machine-learning classification of documented pedophilic sexual interest from eye-tracking patterns.
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.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.