4.7 Article

High-Accuracy Detection of Early Parkinson's Disease through Multimodal Features and Machine Learning

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.03.001

关键词

Parkinson's disease; non-motor features; cerebrospinal fluid markers; dopaminergic imaging; Computer-aided diagnosis; pattern classification

资金

  1. Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research
  2. Abbott Laboratories
  3. Avid Radiopharmaceuticals
  4. Biogen Idec
  5. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  6. Covance
  7. Elan
  8. GE Healthcare
  9. Genentech
  10. GlaxoSmithKline
  11. Eli Lilly and Company
  12. Merck Co.
  13. Meso Scale Discovery
  14. Pfizer
  15. Hoffmann-La Roche
  16. UCB (Union Chimique Beige)
  17. Piramal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Early (or preclinical) diagnosis of Parkinson's disease (PD) is crucial for its early management as by the time manifestation of clinical symptoms occur, more than 60% of the dopaminergic neurons have already been lost. It is now established that there exists a premotor stage, before the start of these classic motor symptoms, characterized by a constellation of clinical features, mostly non-motor in nature such as Rapid Eye Movement (REM) sleep Behaviour Disorder (RBD) and olfactory loss. In this paper, we use the non motor features of RBD and olfactory loss, along with other significant biomarkers such as Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) measurements and dopaminergic imaging markers from 183 healthy normal and 401 early PD subjects, as obtained from the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) database, to classify early PD subjects from normal using Naive Bayes, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Boosted Trees and Random Forests classifiers. We observe that SVM classifier gave the best performance (96.40% accuracy, 97.03% sensitivity, 95.01% specificity, and 98.88% area under ROC). We infer from the study that a combination of non-motor, CSF and imaging markers may aid in the preclinical diagnosis of PD. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据