A decision support system based on recurrent neural networks to predict medication dosage for patients with Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using deep learning has demonstrated significant potential in making informed decisions based on clinical evidence. In this study, we deal with optimizing medication and quantitatively present the role of deep learning in predicting the medication dosage for patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). The proposed method is based on recurrent neural networks (RNNs) and tries to predict the dosage of five critical medication types for PD, including levodopa, dopamine agonists, monoamine oxidase-B inhibitors, catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitors, and amantadine. Recurrent neural networks have memory blocks that retain crucial information from previous patient visits. This feature is helpful for patients with PD, as the neurologist can refer to the patient's previous state and the prescribed medication to make informed decisions. We employed data from the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative. The dataset included information on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, Activities of Daily Living, Hoehn and Yahr scale, demographic details, and medication use logs for each patient. We evaluated several models, such as multi-layer perceptron (MLP), Simple-RNN, long short-term memory (LSTM), and gated recurrent units (GRU). Our analysis found that recurrent neural networks (LSTM and GRU) performed the best. More specifically, when using LSTM, we were able to predict levodopa and dopamine agonist dosage with a mean squared error of 0.009 and 0.003, mean absolute error of 0.062 and 0.030, root mean square error of 0.099 and 0.053, and R-squared of 0.514 and 0.711, respectively.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".