Identification of REM Sleep Behavior Disorder by Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Idiopathic rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder (iRBD) is a major risk factor for synucleinopathies, and patients often present with clinical signs and morphological brain changes. However, there is a heterogeneity in the presentation and progression of these alterations, and brain regions that are more vulnerable to neurodegeneration remain to be determined. Objectives To assess the feasibility of morphology-based machine learning in the identification and subtyping of iRBD. Methods For the classification tasks [iRBD (n=48) vs controls (n=41); iRBD vs Parkinson’s disease (n=29); iRBD with mild cognitive impairment (n=16) vs without mild cognitive impairment (n=32)], machine learning models were trained with morphometric measurements (thickness, surface area, volume, and deformation) extracted from T1-weighted structural magnetic resonance imaging. Model performance and the most discriminative brain regions were analyzed and identified. Results A high accuracy was reported for iRBD vs controls (79.6%, deformation of the caudal middle frontal gyrus and putamen, thinning of the superior frontal gyrus, and reduced volume of the inferior parietal cortex and insula), iRBD vs Parkinson’s disease (82%, smaller volume and surface area of the insula, lower thinning of the entorhinal cortex and lingual gyrus, and greater volume of the fusiform gyrus), and iRBD with vs without mild cognitive impairment (84.8%, thinning of the pars triangularis, superior temporal gyrus, transverse temporal cortex, larger surface area of the superior temporal gyrus, and deformation of isthmus of the cingulate gyrus). Conclusions Morphology-based machine learning approaches may allow for detection and subtyping of iRBD, potentially enabling efficient preclinical identification of synucleinopathies.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".