Eye-Tracking Biomarkers and Autism Diagnosis in Primary Care

Abstract

Importance: Finding effective and scalable solutions to address diagnostic delays and disparities in autism is a public health imperative. Approaches that integrate eye-tracking biomarkers into tiered community-based models of autism evaluation hold promise for addressing this problem. Objective: To determine whether a battery of eye-tracking biomarkers can reliably differentiate young children with and without autism in a community-referred sample collected during clinical evaluation in the primary care setting and to evaluate whether combining eye-tracking biomarkers with primary care practitioner (PCP) diagnosis and diagnostic certainty is associated with diagnostic outcome. Design, setting, and participants: Early Autism Evaluation (EAE) Hub system PCPs referred a consecutive sample of children to this prospective diagnostic study for blinded eye-tracking index test and follow-up expert evaluation from June 7, 2019, to September 23, 2022. Participants included 146 children (aged 14-48 months) consecutively referred by 7 EAE Hubs. Of 154 children enrolled, 146 provided usable data for at least 1 eye-tracking measure. Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity of a composite eye-tracking (ie, index) test, which was a consolidated measure based on significant eye-tracking indices, compared with reference standard expert clinical autism diagnosis. Secondary outcome measures were sensitivity and specificity of an integrated approach using an index test and PCP diagnosis and certainty. Results: Among 146 children (mean [SD] age, 2.6 [0.6] years; 104 [71%] male; 21 [14%] Hispanic or Latine and 96 [66%] non-Latine White; 102 [70%] with a reference standard autism diagnosis), 113 (77%) had concordant autism outcomes between the index (composite biomarker) and reference outcomes, with 77.5% sensitivity (95% CI, 68.4%-84.5%) and 77.3% specificity (95% CI, 63.0%-87.2%). When index diagnosis was based on the combination of a composite biomarker, PCP diagnosis, and diagnostic certainty, outcomes were concordant with reference standard for 114 of 127 cases (90%) with a sensitivity of 90.7% (95% CI, 83.3%-95.0%) and a specificity of 86.7% (95% CI, 70.3%-94.7%). Conclusions and relevance: In this prospective diagnostic study, a composite eye-tracking biomarker was associated with a best-estimate clinical diagnosis of autism, and an integrated diagnostic model including PCP diagnosis and diagnostic certainty demonstrated improved sensitivity and specificity. These findings suggest that equipping PCPs with a multimethod diagnostic approach has the potential to substantially improve access to timely, accurate diagnosis in local communities.