SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Changes in facial expressions can distinguish Parkinson's disease via Bayesian inference.

Front Neurol · 2025-03-27

DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2025.1533942PMID: 40212609

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

ObjectivesWe aimed to clarify the influence of facial expressions on providing early recognition and diagnosis of Parkinson's disease (PD).MethodsWe included 18 people with PD and 18 controls. The participants were asked to perform 12 monosyllabic tests, 8 disyllabic tests, and 6 multisyllabic tests and the whole process were recorded. Then 26 video clips recorded were used to decipher the facial muscle movements and face expression via Noldus FaceReader 7.0 software. 16 suitable variables were selected to construct a Bayesian network model.ResultsThe area under the curve of the unsegmented-syllabic, monosyllabic, dissyllabic, and multisyllabic training models was 0.960, 0.958, and 0.962, respectively, with no significant difference between the models. Based on the Bayesian network models, we found that except for valence in the disyllabic model, all positive facial expressions in the four models are negatively associated with the probability of PD. Moreover, negative facial expressions, including sadness, anger, scared, and disgust in the unsegmented-syllabic, monosyllabic, and multisyllabic models, as well as anger in the disyllabic model, are positively correlated to the probability of PD. Sadness, scare and disgust in disyllabic model are negatively associated with the probability of PD.ConclusionExcept for sad, scared, and disgusted generated by reading disyllables, negative expressions generated by reading other syllables were positively associated with the probability of PD. In addition, scared expressions produced during monosyllabic reading had the greatest effect on the probability of PD, and disgusted expressions produced during multisyllabic reading had the least effect.

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.