MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025211693 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2020.00364

Non-motor Clinical and Biomarker Predictors Enable High Cross-Validated Accuracy Detection of Early PD but Lesser Cross-Validated Accuracy Detection of Scans Without Evidence of Dopaminergic Deficit

2020· article· en· W3025211693 on OpenAlexafffund
Charles Stevens Leger, Monique Herbert, Joseph F. X. DeSouza

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiomarkerCross-validationLogistic regressionArea under the curveReceiver operating characteristicRandom forestMedicineParkinson's diseaseCohen's kappaInternal medicineStatisticsArtificial intelligenceDiseaseMathematicsComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Early stage (preclinical) detection of Parkinson’s disease (PD) remains challenged yet is crucial to both differentiate it from other disorders and facilitate timely administration of neuroprotective treatment as it becomes available. Objective: In a cross-validation paradigm, this work focused on two binary predictive probability analyses: classification of early PD versus controls and classification of early PD versus SWEDD (scans without evidence of dopamine deficit). It was hypothesized that five distinct model types using combined non-motor and biomarker features would distinguish early PD from controls with > 80% cross-validated (CV) accuracy, but that the diverse nature of the SWEDD category would reduce early PD versus SWEDD CV classification accuracy and alter model-based feature selection. Methods: Cross-sectional, baseline data was acquired from the Parkinson’s Progressive Markers Initiative (PPMI). Logistic regression, general additive (GAM), decision tree, random forest and XGBoost models were fitted using non-motor clinical and biomarker features. Randomized train and test data partitions were created. Model classification CV performance was compared using the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity and the Kappa statistic. Results: All five models achieved >.80 AUC CV accuracy to distinguish early PD from controls. The GAM (CV AUC .928, sensitivity .989, specificity .897) and XGBoost (CV AUC .923, sensitivity .875, specificity .897) models were the top classifiers. Performance across all models was consistently lower in the early PD/SWEDD analyses, where the highest performing models were XGBoost (CV AUC .863, sensitivity .905, specificity .748) and random forest (CV AUC .822, sensitivity .809, specificity .721). XGBoost detection of non-PD SWEDD matched 1-2yr curated diagnoses in 81.25% (13/16) cases. In both early PD/control and early PD/SWEDD analyses, and across all models, hyposmia was the single most important feature to classification; rapid eye movement behaviour disorder (questionnaire) was the next most commonly high ranked feature. Alpha-synuclein was a feature of import to early PD/control but not early PD/SWEDD classification and the Epworth Sleepiness scale was antithetically important to the latter but not former. Interpretation: Non-motor clinical and biomarker variables enable high CV discrimination of early PD versus controls but are less effective discriminating early PD from SWEDD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207