MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3165332314

Do DTI features add value to clinical and SPECT imaging features for outcome prediction in Parkinson’s disease?

2021· article· en· W3165332314 on OpenAlexaff
Arash Javanmardi, Mohammad R. Salmanpour, Arman Rahmim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiffusion MRIParkinson's diseaseFeature selectionArtificial intelligenceFractional anisotropyPutamenComputer scienceDopamine transporterDiseaseMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)MedicineInternal medicineMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyDopamineDopaminergic
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→