Do DTI features add value to clinical and SPECT imaging features for outcome prediction in Parkinson’s disease?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
1414 Purpose: Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) features have shown correlation with motor outcome of Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients in previous studies. Our study sets to investigate the effect of DTI features on outcome prediction by employing hybrid machine learning (ML) systems (HMLSs). HMLSs are useful since dimensionality reduction algorithms (DRAs) linked with predictor algorithms have the potential to improve assessment of PD (including prediction of disease outcome that has the potential to significantly improve powering of clinical trials for novel disease-modifying therapies). Methods: We selected 129 PD subjects as derived from the Parkinson’s Progressive Marker Initiative dataset (years 0 and 4) and investigated 100 features, derived from baseline (year 0). The features belonged to 3 categories: i) Non-imaging (NI) including multiple Movement Disorder Society’s Unified Parkinson9s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) measures and a range of task/exam performances, ii) dopamine transporter (DAT) SPECT based features, including left and right putamen and caudate uptake (and their combinations), and iii) DTI based features, consisting of 3 eigenvalues as well as fractional anisotropy from left and right rostral, middle, and caudal areas of the substantia nigra. We generated 7 datasets by employing all possible combination of the 3 categories. MDS-UPDRS III in year 4 (range [3 86]) was considered as the outcome. In our study, two types of HMLSs were utilized including: i) 4 feature selection algorithms (FSAs) followed by prediction algorithms, and ii) 5 feature extraction algorithms (FEAs), both followed by prediction algorithms. The 7 prediction algorithms were regression-based and were also studied individually employing no DRAs (i.e. neither FSAs nor FEAs). The predictor algorithms underwent 5-fold cross-validation, and within the training set the algorithms was optimized via automated ML hyperparameter tuning using 15% of the training data. Predictive performance was evaluated using Mean Absolute Error (MAE). Results: To reduce overfitting and enable improved prediction, the most significant features and attributes from the datasets were derived using FSAs and FEAs. After inputting the optimized combinations from these DRAs into multiple regressors, the smallest MAE achieved was 9.8 ± 2.0 via application of the HMLS: LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) + MLP_BP (Multilayer Perceptron-Back Propagation) to the dataset with DAT+NI features. The smallest MAE achieved with DTI was 9.9 ± 2.1 with the DTI+DAT+NI dataset via application of HMLS: LassoGLM (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator for generalized linear models) + Linear as well as Logistic regression. The HMLSs with FEAs performed well achieving best MAE score of ~11 across all datasets. The worst performing HMLS had MAE of 39.1 ± 11.6 which consisted of no DRAs, using LOLIMOT regression algorithm, applied to the DTI+DAT+NI dataset. Overall, no enhancement of MAE was found in datasets where DTI was included vs. excluded. Conclusion: Even though DTI features were shown to be correlated with motor outcome, our study suggests that above-mentioned DTI features in year 0 do not add value to prediction of motor score (MDS-UPDRS III) in year 4, beyond usage of non-imaging and DAT SPECT based features. Furthermore, employing optimal HMLSs and multiple datasets in year 0, even using DTI, did not enable us to provide a performance compared to our previous studies resulting in a MAE ~ 4 using data from both years 0 and 1. Future work includes application of extensive radiomics features for further analysis.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».