MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415206657 · doi:10.1186/s12911-025-03215-0

Machine learning-based stratification of mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease: a multicenter cross-sectional analysis

2025· article· en· W4415206657 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yanfang Liu, Meiling Chen, Peng Chen, Xiaohui Lin, Sangsang Chen, Chaoning Liu, Donghui Wang, Qing Li, Yuan Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGuangxi Key Research and Development ProgramAvid RadiopharmaceuticalsSanofi GenzymeGenentechH. Lundbeck A/SServierVoyager TherapeuticsNeurocrine BiosciencesNatural Science Foundation of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous RegionBiogenCelgeneVerily Life SciencesTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesGlaxoSmithKlineEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbSanofiMichael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research
KeywordsCognitive impairmentHealth informaticsRisk stratificationMulticenter studyStratification (seeds)Cognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is a prominent non-motor manifestation of Parkinson's disease (PD) and is associated with reduced quality of life, increased mortality, and higher healthcare utilization. We aimed to develop and externally validate a machine-learning model, trained on Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)-based Movement Disorder Society (MDS) Level I labels, that estimates the contemporaneous probability of mild cognitive impairment in PD (PD-MCI) from routinely collected clinical variables, enabling clinicians to prioritize MoCA-normal patients with higher model-estimated probability for MDS Level II neuropsychological evaluation and closer follow-up. METHODS: We analyzed 799 participants with PD from the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI), randomly assigning them to training (n = 559) and internal validation (n = 240) cohorts. An independent external cohort comprised 70 consecutive patients recruited at The Affiliated Hospital of Guilin Medical University between February 2024 and March 2025. The reference outcome was MoCA-based PD-MCI (21-25) versus cognitively normal PD (26-30). Candidate predictors were screened by LASSO (1-SE criterion). To handle class imbalance, SMOTE was applied only during model fitting; both validation cohorts retained native class distributions. Five machine-learning models (logistic regression [LR], support vector machine, XGBoost, neural network, LightGBM) were evaluated on non-resampled data for discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, AUC), calibration, and clinical utility (decision-curve analysis, DCA). Interpretability combined a nomogram with Shapley additive explanations (SHAP); a bilingual web calculator was also implemented. RESULTS: Of 799 PPMI participants, 169 (21.2%) met the MoCA-based PD-MCI definition. Seven routinely collected predictors were retained (sex, age, education, age at disease onset, MDS-UPDRS Part III, GDS, UPSIT). LR showed the most balanced performance: AUC 0.789 (training), 0.778 (internal), and 0.772 (external). At a fixed threshold of 0.50 in the external cohort, LR's sensitivity was 89.7%, specificity 43.9%, and F1-score 66.7%. Calibration and DCA favored LR. SHAP indicated education and motor severity as dominant contributors, followed by sex and age at onset; depressive burden (GDS) and hyposmia (UPSIT) increased risk, whereas chronological age had a smaller marginal effect. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and externally validated a probability-based, clinic-ready risk-stratification tool for PD-MCI using routinely available variables and MoCA-based MDS Level I labels. Implemented as a nomogram and bilingual calculator, it supports sensitivity-oriented triage-especially among MoCA-normal patients-by prioritizing timely MDS Level II evaluation and closer follow-up. The tool complements, rather than replaces, formal diagnostic assessment and does not predict long-term conversion. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable. The PPMI study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01141023) and the registration date is June 8, 2010.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical Informatics and Decision MakingSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207