Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundThe release of a broad, longitudinal anatomical dataset by the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative promoted a surge of machine-learning studies aimed at predicting disease onset and progression. However, the excessive number of features used in these models often conceals their relationship to the Parkinsonian symptomatology.ObjectivesThe aim of this study is two-fold: (i) to predict future motor and cognitive impairments up to four years from brain features acquired at baseline; and (ii) to interpret the role of pivotal brain regions responsible for different symptoms from a neurological viewpoint.MethodsWe test several deep-learning neural network configurations, and report our best results obtained with an autoencoder deep-learning model, run on a 5-fold cross-validation set. Comparison with Existing Methods: Our approach improves upon results from standard regression and others. It also includes neuroimaging biomarkers as features.ResultsThe relative contributions of pivotal brain regions to each impairment change over time, suggesting a dynamical reordering of culprits as the disease progresses. Specifically, the Putamen is initially the most critical region accounting for the overall cognitive state, only being surpassed by the Substantia Nigra in later years. The Pallidum is the first region to influence motor scores, followed by the parahippocampal and ambient gyri, and the anterior orbital gyrus.ConclusionsWhile the causal link between regional brain atrophy and Parkinson symptomatology is poorly understood, our methods demonstrate that the contributions of pivotal regions to cognitive and motor impairments are more dynamical than generally appreciated.
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.