A data mining approach for classification of orthostatic and essential tremor based on MRI‐derived brain volume and cortical thickness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Orthostatic tremor (OT) is an extremely rare, misdiagnosed, and underdiagnosed disorder affecting adults in midlife. There is debate as to whether it is a different condition or a variant of essential tremor (ET), or even, if both conditions coexist. Our objective was to use data mining classification methods, using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-derived brain volume and cortical thickness data, to identify morphometric measures that help to discriminate OT patients from those with ET. METHODS: MRI-derived brain volume and cortical thickness were obtained from 14 OT patients and 15 age-, sex-, and education-matched ET patients. Feature selection and machine learning methods were subsequently applied. RESULTS: Four MRI features alone distinguished the two, OT from ET, with 100% diagnostic accuracy. More specifically, left thalamus proper volume (normalized by the total intracranial volume), right superior parietal volume, right superior parietal thickness, and right inferior parietal roughness (i.e., the standard deviation of cortical thickness) were shown to play a key role in OT and ET characterization. Finally, the left caudal anterior cingulate thickness and the left caudal middle frontal roughness allowed us to separate with 100% diagnostic accuracy subgroups of OT patients (primary and those with mild parkinsonian signs). CONCLUSIONS: A data mining approach applied to MRI-derived brain volume and cortical thickness data may differentiate between these two types of tremor with an accuracy of 100%. Our results suggest that OT and ET are distinct conditions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".