Voice biomarkers as prognostic indicators for Parkinson’s disease using machine learning techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many people suffer from Parkinson's disease globally, a complicated neurological condition caused by the deficiency of dopamine, an organic chemical responsible for regulating movement in individuals. Patients with Parkinson face muscle stiffness or rigidity, tremors, vocal impairment, slow movement, loss of facial expressions, and problems with balance and coordination. As there is no cure for Parkinson, early diagnosis can help prevent the progression of this disease. The study explores the potential of vocal measures as significant indicators for early prediction of Parkinson. Different machine learning models such as Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), Logistic Regression (LR), and Decision Tree (DT) are used to detect Parkinson using voice measures and differentiate between the healthy and Parkinson patients. The dataset contains 195 vocal recordings from 31 patients. The Synthetic Minority Over-Sampling Technique (SMOTE) is used for handling class imbalance to improve the performance of the models. The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) method was used for feature selection. The study uses different parameters to evaluate the model's classification results. The results highlight RF as the most effective model with an accuracy of 94% and a precision of 94%. In addition, SVM achieves an accuracy score of 92%, and precision of 91%. However, with the PCA method, SVM achieves an accuracy of 89%, 92%, and 87% for RF and DT respectively. This study highlights the significance of using vocal features along with advanced machine learning methods to reliably diagnose Parkinson's disease, considering the challenges associated with early detection.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".