SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Machine Learning Models for Parkinson Disease: Systematic Review.

JMIR Med Inform · 2024-05-17

DOI: 10.2196/50117PMID: 38771237

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

BackgroundWith the increasing availability of data, computing resources, and easier-to-use software libraries, machine learning (ML) is increasingly used in disease detection and prediction, including for Parkinson disease (PD). Despite the large number of studies published every year, very few ML systems have been adopted for real-world use. In particular, a lack of external validity may result in poor performance of these systems in clinical practice. Additional methodological issues in ML design and reporting can also hinder clinical adoption, even for applications that would benefit from such data-driven systems.ObjectiveTo sample the current ML practices in PD applications, we conducted a systematic review of studies published in 2020 and 2021 that used ML models to diagnose PD or track PD progression.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines in PubMed between January 2020 and April 2021, using the following exact string: "Parkinson's" AND ("ML" OR "prediction" OR "classification" OR "detection" or "artificial intelligence" OR "AI"). The search resulted in 1085 publications. After a search query and review, we found 113 publications that used ML for the classification or regression-based prediction of PD or PD-related symptoms.ResultsOnly 65.5% (74/113) of studies used a holdout test set to avoid potentially inflated accuracies, and approximately half (25/46, 54%) of the studies without a holdout test set did not state this as a potential concern. Surprisingly, 38.9% (44/113) of studies did not report on how or if models were tuned, and an additional 27.4% (31/113) used ad hoc model tuning, which is generally frowned upon in ML model optimization. Only 15% (17/113) of studies performed direct comparisons of results with other models, severely limiting the interpretation of results.ConclusionsThis review highlights the notable limitations of current ML systems and techniques that may contribute to a gap between reported performance in research and the real-life applicability of ML models aiming to detect and predict diseases such as PD.

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.