SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Parkinson's progression prediction using machine learning and serum cytokines.

NPJ Parkinsons Dis · 2019-07-25

DOI: 10.1038/s41531-019-0086-4PMID: 31372494

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

The heterogeneous nature of Parkinson's disease (PD) symptoms and variability in their progression complicates patient treatment and interpretation of clinical trials. Consequently, there is much interest in developing models that can predict PD progression. In this study we have used serum samples from a clinically well characterized longitudinally followed Michael J Fox Foundation cohort of PD patients with and without the common leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2) G2019S mutation. We have measured 27 inflammatory cytokines and chemokines in serum at baseline and after 1 year to investigate cytokine stability. We then used the baseline measurements in conjunction with machine learning models to predict longitudinal clinical outcomes after 2 years follow up. Using the normalized root mean square error (NRMSE) as a measure of performance, the best prediction models were for the motor symptom severity scales, with NRMSE of 0.1123 for the Hoehn and Yahr scale and 0.1193 for the unified Parkinson's disease rating scale part three (UPDRS III). For each model, the top variables contributing to prediction were identified, with the chemokines macrophage inflammatory protein one alpha (MIP1α), and monocyte chemoattractant protein one (MCP1) making the biggest peripheral contribution to prediction of Hoehn and Yahr and UPDRS III, respectively. These results provide information on the longitudinal assessment of peripheral inflammatory cytokines in PD and give evidence that peripheral cytokines may have utility for aiding prediction of PD progression using machine learning models.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.