The autism biomarkers consortium for clinical trials: evaluation of a battery of candidate eye-tracking biomarkers for use in autism clinical trials.
Frederick Shic, Adam J Naples, Erin C Barney and 25 others
PMID 35313957WHAT IT FOUND
Eye-tracking measures of gaze to faces were feasible and stable in children with autism.
These measures differed significantly from typically developing peers and correlated with social communication scores, supporting their use as biomarkers for clinical trial stratification.
Key findings
01Eye-tracking data acquisition was highly feasible, with valid signal rates exceeding 95% for both children with autism and typically developing controls.
02Children with autism showed significantly reduced gaze to faces compared to typically developing children, a difference that remained significant after controlling for age, IQ, and data quality.
03Reduced gaze to faces was associated with greater severity of social communication deficits and poorer memory for faces in children with autism.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was observational and did not test how these biomarkers respond to specific interventions. There was significant overlap in biomarker scores between the ASD and TD groups, meaning these measures cannot be used for individual diagnosis. The study used expensive, research-grade eye-tracking systems, which may not be accessible in standard clinical settings. Data quality was lower in the ASD group, which was associated with lower cognitive ability and more severe symptoms, potentially introducing bias.
Declared interests
Funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. The authors declared no other conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not use these eye-tracking measures for individual diagnosis. The study explicitly states that there is considerable distributional overlap between children with autism and typically developing children, making these biomarkers suitable only for group-level stratification or research contexts, not for clinical identification of a single patient.