Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
As a medical imaging technology which can show the metabolism of the brain, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) is of great value for the diagnosis of Parkinson's Disease (PD). With the development of pattern recognition technology, analysis of brain images using deep learning are becoming more and more popular. However, existing computer-aided-diagnosis technologies often over fit and have poor generalizability. Therefore, we aimed to improve a framework based on Group Lasso Sparse Deep Belief Network (GLS-DBN) for discriminating PD and normal control (NC) subjects based on FDG-PET imaging. In this study, 225 NC and 125 PD cohorts from Huashan and Wuxi 904 hospitals were selected. They were divided into the training & validation dataset and 2 test datasets. First, in the training & validation set, subjects were randomly partitioned 80:20, with multiple training iterations for the deep learning model. Next, Locally Linear Embedding was used as a dimension reduction algorithm. Then, GLS-DBN was used for feature learning and classification. Different sparse DBN models were used to compare datasets to evaluate the effectiveness of our framework. Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were examined to validate the results. Output variables of the network were also correlated with longitudinal changes of rating scales about movement disorders (UPDRS, H&Y). As a result, accuracy of prediction (90% in Test 1, 86% in Test 2) for classification of PD and NC patients outperformed conventional approaches. Output scores of the network were strongly correlated with UPDRS and H&Y (R = 0.705, p R = 0.697, p R = 0.592, p = 0.0018, R = 0.528, p = 0.0067 in Test 2). These results show the GLS-DBN is feasible method for early diagnosis of PD.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.