SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Machine learning based risk prediction for Parkinson's disease with nationwide health screening data.

Sci Rep · 2022-11-14

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-24105-9PMID: 36376523

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Although many studies have been conducted on machine learning (ML) models for Parkinson's disease (PD) prediction using neuroimaging and movement analyses, studies with large population-based datasets are limited. We aimed to propose PD prediction models using ML algorithms based on the National Health Insurance Service-Health Screening datasets. We selected individuals who participated in national health-screening programs > 5 times between 2002 and 2015. PD was defined based on the ICD-code (G20), and a matched cohort of individuals without PD was selected using a 1:1 random sampling method. Various ML algorithms were applied for PD prediction, and the performance of the prediction models was compared. Neural networks, gradient boosting machines, and random forest algorithms exhibited the best average prediction accuracy (average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC): 0.779, 0.766, and 0.731, respectively) among the algorithms validated in this study. The overall model performance metrics were higher in men than in women (AUC: 0.742 and 0.729, respectively). The most important factor for predicting PD occurrence was body mass index, followed by total cholesterol, glucose, hemoglobin, and blood pressure levels. Smoking and alcohol consumption (in men) and socioeconomic status, physical activity, and diabetes mellitus (in women) were highly correlated with the occurrence of PD. The proposed health-screening dataset-based PD prediction model using ML algorithms is readily applicable, produces validated results, and could be a useful option for PD prediction 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.