Fuzzy Classification Methods Based Diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease from Speech Test Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Together with the Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease is considTogether with the Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease is considered as one of the two serious known neurodegenerative diseases. Physicians find it hard to predict whether a given patient has already developed or is expected to develop the Parkinson’s disease in the future. To overcome this difficulty, it is possible to develop a computing model, which analyzes the data related to a given patient and predicts with acceptable accuracy when he/she is anticipated to develop the Parkinson’s disease.ered as one of the two serious known neurodegenerative diseases. Physicians find it hard to predict whether a given patient has already developed or is expected to develop the Parkinson’s disease in the future. To overcome this difficulty, it is possible to develop a computing model, which analyzes the data related to a given patient and predicts with acceptable accuracy when he/she is anticipated to develop the Parkinson’s disease. This paper contributes an attractive prediction framework based on some machine learning approaches. Several fuzzy classifiers have been employed in the process to distinguish people with Parkinsonism from healthy individuals. The fuzzy classifiers utilized in this study have been tested using the “Parkinson Speech Dataset with Multiple Types of Sound Recordings Data Set” available from the UCI repository. The results reported in this paper are better than the results reported by Sakar et al., where the same dataset was used, but with different classifiers. This demonstrates the applicability and effectiveness of the fuzzy classifiers used in this study as compared to the non-fuzzy classifiers used by Sakar et al. Objectives: This paper contributes an attractive prediction framework based on some machine learning approaches for distinguishing people with Parkinsonism from healthy individuals. Methods: Several fuzzy classifiers such as Inductive Fuzzy Classifier, Fuzzy Rough Classifier and two types of neuro-fuzzy classifiers have been employed. Results: The fuzzy classifiers utilized in this study have been tested using the “Parkinson Speech Dataset with Multiple Types of Sound Recordings Data Set” of 40 subjects available on the UCI repository. Conclusion: The results achieved show that FURIA, MLP- Bagging - SGD, genfis2 and scg1 performed the best among the fuzzy rough, WEKA, adaptive neuro-fuzzy and neuro-fuzzy classifiers, respectively. The worst performance belongs to nearest neighborhood, IBK, genfis3 and scg3 among the formerly mentioned classifiers. The results reported in this paper are better in comparison to the results reported in Sakar et al., where the same dataset was used, with utilization of different classifiers. This demonstrates the applicability and effectiveness of the fuzzy classifiers used in this study as compared to the non-fuzzy classifiers used by Sakar et al.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".