Artificial intelligence in diagnosis and management of Huntington’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Huntington’s disease is one of the rare neurodegenerative diseases caused because of genetic mutation of the Huntingtin gene. The major hallmarks of the condition include motor impairment, cognitive decline, and psychiatric symptoms. With no cure and only symptomatic treatments available, early detection and personalized therapy are warranted for managing the disease effectively. Artificial Intelligence has emerged as a transformational tool in healthcare, revolutionizing many parts of medical practice and research, thus holding the potential in detecting, monitoring, and managing Huntington’s disease. Main body of abstract Artificial Intelligence’s role in Huntington’s disease includes a variety of applications like medical image analysis and predictive analytics. AI-driven algorithms are utilized to analyze brain imaging data in medical image analysis. Deep learning and convolutional neural networks (CNNs) aid in the detection of subtle brain changes and the identification of illness biomarkers, allowing for the early diagnosis of the disease. Additionally, the predictive analytics capabilities of AI are used to analyze disease development and forecast clinical outcomes. AI models can identify illness patterns, estimate the rate of functional decline, and assist doctors in making educated decisions about treatment methods and care planning by analyzing patient data. Conclusions With clinical practice and research integrated with Artificial Intelligence technologies, we can significantly improve the quality of life of individuals affected with Huntington’s disease. This integration holds the potential to develop effective personalized interventions. Nevertheless, collaborative efforts among doctors, researchers, and technology sound developers would be key to the successful implementation of AI in HD. Graphical Abstract
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.005 |
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".