Test for Alzheimer's Risk Shows Promise

An eye-tracking test may serve as a screen for predicting Alzheimer's

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

One in nine Americans aged 65 and older has Alzheimer's disease. Therapy could come in the form of new drugs, but some experts suspect drug trials have failed so far because compounds were tested too late in the disease's progression. By the time people show signs of dementia, their brains have lost neurons. No therapy can revive dead cells, and little can be done to create new ones.

So researchers running trials now seek participants who still pass as cognitively normal but are on the verge of decline. These “preclinical” Alzheimer's patients may represent a window of opportunity for therapeutic intervention. How to identify such individuals before they have symptoms presents a challenge, however.

Today most Alzheimer's patients are diagnosed after a detailed medical workup and extensive tests that gauge mental function. Other tests, such as spinal fluid analyses and positron-emission tomography (PET), can detect signs of approaching disease and help pinpoint the preclinical window but are cumbersome or costly. “There's no cheap, fast, noninvasive test that can identify people at risk of Alzheimer's,” says Brad Dolin, chief technology officer of Neurotrack in Palo Alto, Calif., a company developing a computerized visual screening test for Alzheimer's.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Unlike other cognitive batteries, the Neurotrack test requires no language or motor skills. Participants view images on a monitor while a camera tracks their eye movements. The test draws on research by co-founder Stuart Zola of Emory University, who studies learning and memory in monkeys. When presented with a pair of images—one novel, the other familiar—primates fixate longer on the novel one. But if the hippocampus is damaged, as it is in people with Alzheimer's, the subject does not show a clear preference for the novel images.

The findings seem to hold in people. In a study published in 2013 Zola and his colleagues gave the half-hour test to 92 seniors. Scores predicted who would develop Alzheimer's three years in advance. The company has since developed a five-minute Web-based test that uses webcams and is launching a three-year study of the test with up to 3,000 seniors in Shanghai this winter. Additional studies in the U.S. will evaluate the tool alongside PET and other measures for preclinical Alzheimer's. And a number of pharmaceutical companies will include Neurotrack in clinical trials of Alzheimer's therapies in the next few years, according to Neurotrack's CEO Elli Kaplan. Experts not involved with Neurotrack think it shows promise. The test paradigm has “an excellent base of supporting literature,” says Peter Snyder of Brown University.

Blood tests, retinal scans and computerized cognitive tests are also in the running as simple screens for presymptomatic Alzheimer's. It is unclear which is most accurate, and doctors likely would use several to assess the disease's progression.

Esther Landhuis is a journalist in the San Francisco Bay Area. She holds a Ph.D. in immunology and covers biomedicine in all dimensions, from bench discoveries to biotech in health care.

More by Esther Landhuis
SA Special Editions Vol 24 Issue 1sThis article was published with the title “Advance Warning” in SA Special Editions Vol. 24 No. 1s (), p. 72
doi:10.1038/scientificamericansecrets0315-72

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe