article · BMC Psychiatry
BACKGROUND: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) affects 1 in 100 children globally, yet early detection remains challenging due to reliance on subjective behavioral assessments and limited specialist availability, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Eye-tracking biomarkers offer objective, quantitative measurements of visual attention patterns, but existing Neural Network approaches lack systematic evaluation across diverse neural network architectures and multi-site data. This study provides a comprehensive comparison of Graph Neural Networks, Long Short-Term Memory networks, and Multilayer Perceptrons for ASD detection using multimodal eye-tracking features. METHODS: We combined two independent datasets: CILIA (57 participants from France, structured viewing paradigm) and Saliency4ASD (27 participants from Italy, free-viewing paradigm), creating a diverse multi-site European cohort of 84 participants (40 ASD, 44 typically developing). Four neural network architectures were evaluated: Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) with attention mechanisms, GNN without attention, bidirectional Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), and Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) networks. Eye-tracking features included fixation patterns, saccade dynamics, pupil diameter, and spatial attention distributions. Leave-one-subject-out cross-validation ensured robust generalization. Statistical comparisons employed DeLong tests for area under the ROC curve differences, McNemar tests for accuracy, and bootstrap confidence intervals (10,000 iterations). Per-dataset performance analysis assessed generalization across acquisition protocols. RESULTS: LSTM achieved the highest AUC of 0.859 (95% CI: 0.770-0.934), followed by GNN with attention (AUC = 0.855, 95% CI: 0.763-0.931). Contrary to expectations, attention mechanisms did not significantly improve GNN performance (GNN without attention: AUC = 0.823, p = 0.102). LSTM significantly outperformed MLP (AUC = 0.811, p = 0.002) but showed no significant difference versus GNN with attention (p = 0.749). GNN with attention demonstrated the highest specificity (93.2%) and positive predictive value (90.6%). Performance remained consistent across both datasets (LSTM: AUC = 0.840 on CILIA versus 0.956 on Saliency4ASD), supporting generalization across datasets despite different viewing paradigms, equipment, and cultural populations. All models exhibited large effect sizes (Cohen's d exceeding 1.0) for discriminating ASD from typically developing predictions. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic evaluation demonstrates that LSTM and graph-based approaches achieve equivalent performance for ASD detection from eye-tracking biomarkers, with attention mechanisms providing no significant benefit. The high specificity (93.2%), real-time capability, and cross-dataset generalization make these models viable for scalable, objective ASD screening in clinical settings, potentially enabling earlier intervention in resource-constrained environments.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1186/s12888-026-08256-x
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.