Prediction of Cognitive Decline in Parkinson’s Disease Using Clinical and DAT SPECT Imaging Features, and Hybrid Machine Learning Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to predict Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores in Parkinson's disease patients at year 4 using handcrafted radiomics (RF), deep (DF), and clinical (CF) features at year 0 (baseline) applied to hybrid machine learning systems (HMLSs). METHODS: 297 patients were selected from the Parkinson's Progressive Marker Initiative (PPMI) database. The standardized SERA radiomics software and a 3D encoder were employed to extract RFs and DFs from single-photon emission computed tomography (DAT-SPECT) images, respectively. The patients with MoCA scores over 26 were indicated as normal; otherwise, scores under 26 were indicated as abnormal. Moreover, we applied different combinations of feature sets to HMLSs, including the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) feature selection, which was linked with eight classifiers, including Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), K-Neighbors Classifier (KNN), Extra Trees Classifier (ETC), and others. We employed 80% of the patients to select the best model in a 5-fold cross-validation process, and the remaining 20% were employed for hold-out testing. RESULTS: For the sole usage of RFs and DFs, ANOVA and MLP resulted in averaged accuracies of 59 ± 3% and 65 ± 4% for 5-fold cross-validation, respectively, with hold-out testing accuracies of 59 ± 1% and 56 ± 2%, respectively. For sole CFs, a higher performance of 77 ± 8% for 5-fold cross-validation and a hold-out testing performance of 82 + 2% were obtained from ANOVA and ETC. RF+DF obtained a performance of 64 ± 7%, with a hold-out testing performance of 59 ± 2% through ANOVA and XGBC. Usage of CF+RF, CF+DF, and RF+DF+CF enabled the highest averaged accuracies of 78 ± 7%, 78 ± 9%, and 76 ± 8% for 5-fold cross-validation, and hold-out testing accuracies of 81 ± 2%, 82 ± 2%, and 83 ± 4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that CFs vitally contribute to predictive performance, and combining them with appropriate imaging features and HMLSs can result in the best prediction performance.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".