Application of Machine Learning Technique to Distinguish Parkinson’s Disease Dementia and Alzheimer’s Dementia: Predictive Power of Parkinson’s Disease-Related Non-Motor Symptoms and Neuropsychological Profile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to develop a predictive model that can distinguish Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD) from other dementia types, such as Alzheimer's dementia (AD), it is necessary to evaluate and identify the predictive accuracy of the cognitive profile while considering the non-motor symptoms, such as depression and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behavior disorders. This study compared Parkinson's disease (PD)'s non-motor symptoms and the diagnostic predictive power of cognitive profiles that distinguish AD and PD using machine learning. This study analyzed 118 patients with AD and 110 patients with PDD, and all subjects were 60 years or older. In order to develop the PDD prediction model, the dataset was divided into training data (70%) and test data (30%). The prediction accuracy of the model was calculated by the recognition rate. The results of this study show that Parkinson-related non-motor symptoms, such as REM sleep behavior disorders, and cognitive screening tests, such as Korean version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment, were highly accurate factors for predicting PDD. It is required to develop customized screening tests that can detect PDD in the early stage based on these results. Furthermore, it is believed that including biomarkers such as brain images or cerebrospinal fluid as input variables will be more useful for developing PDD prediction models in the future.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".