MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398167607 · doi:10.2196/50117

Machine Learning Models for Parkinson Disease: Systematic Review

2024· article· en· W4398167607 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thasina Tabashum, R. Snyder, Megan K. O’Brien, Mark V. Albert

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParkinson's diseaseComputer scienceDiseaseSystematic reviewMedicineMEDLINEData scienceArtificial intelligencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: With the increasing availability of data, computing resources, and easier-to-use software libraries, machine learning (ML) is increasingly used in disease detection and prediction, including for Parkinson disease (PD). Despite the large number of studies published every year, very few ML systems have been adopted for real-world use. In particular, a lack of external validity may result in poor performance of these systems in clinical practice. Additional methodological issues in ML design and reporting can also hinder clinical adoption, even for applications that would benefit from such data-driven systems. Objective: To sample the current ML practices in PD applications, we conducted a systematic review of studies published in 2020 and 2021 that used ML models to diagnose PD or track PD progression. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines in PubMed between January 2020 and April 2021, using the following exact string: "Parkinson's" AND ("ML" OR "prediction" OR "classification" OR "detection" or "artificial intelligence" OR "AI"). The search resulted in 1085 publications. After a search query and review, we found 113 publications that used ML for the classification or regression-based prediction of PD or PD-related symptoms. Results: Only 65.5% (74/113) of studies used a holdout test set to avoid potentially inflated accuracies, and approximately half (25/46, 54%) of the studies without a holdout test set did not state this as a potential concern. Surprisingly, 38.9% (44/113) of studies did not report on how or if models were tuned, and an additional 27.4% (31/113) used ad hoc model tuning, which is generally frowned upon in ML model optimization. Only 15% (17/113) of studies performed direct comparisons of results with other models, severely limiting the interpretation of results. Conclusions: This review highlights the notable limitations of current ML systems and techniques that may contribute to a gap between reported performance in research and the real-life applicability of ML models aiming to detect and predict diseases such as 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicVoice and Speech DisordersFrench-language works237,207