MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Parkinson's Disease Detection on DaTscan Images Using Random Forest and Graph Deep Learning

2025· article· en· W4417052102 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Urien Hélène

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAvid RadiopharmaceuticalsGE HealthcareH. Lundbeck A/SGenentech FoundationServierVoyager TherapeuticsBristol-Myers SquibbAligning Science Across Parkinson’sNeurocrine BiosciencesCerevel TherapeuticsJazz PharmaceuticalsTakeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A.Denali CommissionAbbVieJanssen BiotechTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesVerily Life SciencesAmathus TherapeuticsCelgenePfizerBiogenSanofiWeston Family FoundationMerckMichael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's ResearchRoche
KeywordsRandom forestPattern recognition (psychology)Robustness (evolution)GraphSegmentationDeep learningImage segmentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parkinson's disease is characterized by motor disorders caused by the progressive death of neurons producing dopamine. DaTscan imaging, namely Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) with ioflupane (${ }^{123} I$), allows to quantify this loss of neurodopaminergic neurons, more particularly observed in the striatum. In this article, a two-step classification method is proposed to detect Parkinson's disease on DaTscan images focusing on this key structure. A graph is first created from the segmentation of the striatum, relying on the creation of the Max-Tree of the DaTscan image and a prior segmentation. Then, a Random Forest algorithm is applied to classify the nodes of the striatal graph, computing features extracted locally or related to subject's properties. Finally, the classification is made on the whole graph using Deep Learning, and adding the Random Forest predictions as new features. The combination of these two approaches offers promising results on the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) database, achieving an average balanced accuracy of$91.1\%$using a nested cross-validation strategy to increase the robustness of the results.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→