MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4372403590 · doi:10.1101/2023.05.05.539590

Predicting Parkinson’s disease progression using MRI-based white matter radiomic biomarker and machine learning: a reproducibility and replicability study

2023· preprint· en· W4372403590 on OpenAlexaff
Mohanad Arafe, Nikhil Bhagwat, Yohan Chatelain, Mathieu Dugré, Andrzej Sokołowski, Michelle Wang, Yiming Xiao, Madeleine Sharp, Jean‐Baptiste Poline, Tristan Glatard

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityConcordia University
FundersMichael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceReplicateRobustness (evolution)NeuroimagingMachine learningMagnetic resonance imagingBiomarkerCohortParkinson's diseaseImaging biomarkerReproducibilityPopulationMedicineComputer scienceFeature selectionDiseaseInternal medicineStatisticsRadiologyMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The availability of reliable biomarkers of Parkinson’s disease (PD) progression is critical to the understanding of the disease and development of treatment options. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) provides a promising source of PD biomarkers, however, neuroimaging results have been shown to be markedly sensitive to analytical conditions and population sampling, which motivates investigations of their robustness. This study is part of a project to investigate the replicability of 11 structural MRI measures of PD identified in a recent review. Objective This paper attempts to reproduce (similar data, similar analysis) and replicate (variations in data and analysis) the design of the machine learning (ML) model described in [1] to predict PD progression from T1-weighted MRIs. Methods We used the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative dataset (PPMI, ppmi-info.org ) used in [1] and we followed as closely as possible the original methods. We also investigated slight methodological variations in cohort selection, feature extraction, ML model design, and evaluation techniques. Results The Area under the ROC Curve (AUC) achieved by our model closely reproducing the original study remained lower than 0.5. Across all tested models, we obtained a peak AUC of 0.685, which is better than chance performance but remained lower than the AUC value of 0.795 reported in [1]. Conclusion We managed to train a model that predicts disease progression with a performance better than chance on a cohort extracted from the PPMI dataset, using methods adapted from [1]. However, the performance of this model remains substantially lower than the one reported in [1]. Our difficulties to reproduce or replicate the original work are likely explained by the relatively low sample size in the original study. We provide recommendations on how to improve the reproducibility of MRI-based ML models of PD 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 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)0.134
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.223
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1340.223
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.257 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainReproducibility
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→