SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

A review of machine learning and deep learning algorithms for Parkinson's disease detection using handwriting and voice datasets.

Heliyon · 2024-02-05

DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25469PMID: 38356538

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

Parkinson's Disease (PD) is a prevalent neurodegenerative disorder with significant clinical implications. Early and accurate diagnosis of PD is crucial for timely intervention and personalized treatment. In recent years, Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL) techniques have emerged as promis-ing tools for improving PD diagnosis. This review paper presents a detailed analysis of the current state of ML and DL-based PD diagnosis, focusing on voice, handwriting, and wave spiral datasets. The study also evaluates the effectiveness of various ML and DL algorithms, including classifiers, on these datasets and highlights their potential in enhancing diagnostic accuracy and aiding clinical decision-making. Additionally, the paper explores the identifi-cation of biomarkers using these techniques, offering insights into improving the diagnostic process. The discussion encompasses different data formats and commonly employed ML and DL methods in PD diagnosis, providing a comprehensive overview of the field. This review serves as a roadmap for future research, guiding the development of ML and DL-based tools for PD detection. It is expected to benefit both the scientific community and medical practitioners by advancing our understanding of PD diagnosis and ultimately improving patient outcomes.

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.