SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Impulse Control Disorders in Parkinson's Disease From Clinical and Genetic Data.

IEEE Open J Eng Med Biol · 2022-05-27

DOI: 10.1109/ojemb.2022.3178295PMID: 35813487

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

Goal: Impulse control disorders (ICDs) are frequent non-motor symptoms occurring during the course of Parkinson's disease (PD). The objective of this study was to estimate the predictability of the future occurrence of these disorders using longitudinal data, the first study using cross-validation and replication in an independent cohort. Methods: We used data from two longitudinal PD cohorts (training set: PPMI, Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative; test set: DIGPD, Drug Interaction With Genes in Parkinson's Disease). We included 380 PD subjects from PPMI and 388 PD subjects from DIGPD, with at least two visits and with clinical and genetic data available, in our analyses. We trained three logistic regressions and a recurrent neural network to predict ICDs at the next visit using clinical risk factors and genetic variants previously associated with ICDs. We quantified performance using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC) and average precision. We compared these models to a trivial model predicting ICDs at the next visit with the status at the most recent visit. Results: The recurrent neural network (PPMI: 0.85 [0.80 - 0.90], DIGPD: 0.802 [0.78 - 0.83]) was the only model to be significantly better than the trivial model (PPMI: ROC AUC = 0.75 [0.69 - 0.81]; DIGPD: 0.78 [0.75 - 0.80]) on both cohorts. We showed that ICDs in PD can be predicted with better accuracy with a recurrent neural network model than a trivial model. The improvement in terms of ROC AUC was higher on PPMI than on DIGPD data, but not clinically relevant in both cohorts. Conclusions: Our results indicate that machine learning methods are potentially useful for predicting ICDs, but further works are required to reach clinical relevance.

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.