OVISTA is built to sit at the front door of care: fast and affordable enough for a primary care setting, so the patients who need a specialist get referred sooner, and the ones who don't aren't sent on an unnecessary workup.
A ~5-minute oculomotor test, run in a family practice or general clinic setting, producing a risk band — Green, Amber, or Red — not a diagnosis.
Amber or Red results support a referral to neurology or memory-clinic assessment — a targeted referral decision, not a blanket one.
Full diagnostic workup remains with specialist care. OVISTA's job is to narrow who needs it sooner — it doesn't replace that process.
Because the alternative is usually nothing measurable at all. Early cognitive change is hard to catch reliably in a standard visit — subtle, easy to attribute to normal aging, and easy to miss until symptoms are already established. A short, objective oculomotor screen adds a concrete data point to a judgment call clinicians are already making, without adding a meaningful burden to the visit.
Treat it the way you'd treat any other positive screening signal: as a reason to refer, not a reason to tell the patient what's wrong. An Amber or Red band supports a referral to neurology or a memory clinic for full assessment. It's one more piece of objective evidence behind a referral decision you'd otherwise be making on subjective grounds alone.
No — and it isn't designed to. OVISTA doesn't interpret a patient's history, doesn't examine them, and doesn't make a referral decision for you. It gives you one additional, objective, standardized signal earlier than you'd otherwise have it. The judgment about what to do with that signal stays entirely yours.
Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia — that's the current focus, and the only conditions the platform is built and calibrated around. It is not a general-purpose neurological or cognitive test.
Several common, unrelated factors are documented to affect the same eye-movement measures OVISTA uses — including fatigue, low mood, sedating medication, uncorrected vision problems, and diabetes with nerve involvement. None of these automatically invalidate a result, but they're worth ruling out before treating an Amber or Red band as purely cognitive. We ask clinicians to note them at intake so a result can be read in context, not in isolation.
This matters more for clinicians than for anyone else reading this site, so we want it to be unambiguous.
Our oculomotor protocols are grounded in the published literature and are currently undergoing pilot validation. OVISTA is not yet cleared as a diagnostic device by any regulatory body, and it should not be used to make or defer a clinical decision on its own. We're publishing this stage plainly, without softening it, because we think a clinician evaluating this tool deserves to know exactly where it stands before it reaches their patients.
We're looking to hear from clinicians who want to be part of validating this before it's finished — not just using it after.