A review of machine learning and deep learning for Parkinson’s disease detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Millions of people worldwide suffer from Parkinson's disease (PD), a neurodegenerative disorder marked by motor symptoms such as tremors, bradykinesia, and stiffness. Accurate early diagnosis is crucial for effective management and treatment. This article presents a novel review of Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL) techniques for PD detection and progression monitoring, offering new perspectives by integrating diverse data sources. We examine the public datasets recently used in studies, including audio recordings, gait analysis, and medical imaging. We discuss the preprocessing methods applied, the state-of-the-art models utilized, and their performance. Our evaluation included different algorithms such as support vector machines (SVM), random forests (RF), convolutional neural networks (CNN). These algorithms have shown promising results in PD diagnosis with accuracy rates exceeding 99% in some studies combining data sources. Our analysis particularly showcases the effectiveness of audio analysis in early symptom detection and gait analysis, including the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), in monitoring disease progression. Medical imaging, enhanced by DL techniques, has improved the identification of PD. The application of ML and DL in PD research offers significant potential for improving diagnostic accuracy. However, challenges like the need for large and diverse datasets, data privacy concerns, and data quality in healthcare remain. Additionally, developing explainable AI is crucial to ensure that clinicians can trust and understand ML and DL models. Our review highlights these key challenges that must be addressed to enhance the robustness and applicability of AI models in PD diagnosis, setting the groundwork for future research to overcome these obstacles.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".