A deep learning convolutional neural network distinguishes neuronal models of Parkinson’s disease from matched controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder that results in the loss of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta. Despite advances in understanding PD, there is a critical need for novel therapeutics that can slow or halt its progression. Induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived dopaminergic neurons have been used to model PD but measuring differences between PD and control cells in a robust, reproducible, and scalable manner remains a challenge. In this study, we developed a binary classifier convolutional neural network (CNN) to accurately classify microscopy images of PD models and matched control cells. We acquired images of iPSC-derived neural precursor cells (NPCs) and dopaminergic (DANs) and trained multiple CNN models comparing control cells to genetic and chemical models of PD. Our CNN accurately predicted whether control NPC cells were treated with the PD-inducing pesticide rotenone with 97.60% accuracy. We also compared control to a genetic model of PD (deletion of the Parkin gene) and found a predictive accuracy of 86.77% and 95.47% for NPC and DAN CNNs, respectively. Our cells were stained for nuclei, mitochondria, and plasma membrane, and we compared the contribution of each to the CNN’s accuracy. Using all three features together produced the best accuracy, but nuclear staining alone produced a highly predictive CNN. Our study demonstrates the power of deep learning and computer vision for analyzing complex PD-related phenotypes in DANs and suggests that these tools hold promise for identifying new targets for therapy and improving our understanding of PD.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".