SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Screening for Parkinson's disease using "computer vision".

PLoS One · 2025-08-12

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0330373PMID: 40794744

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

BackgroundIdentifying bradykinesia is crucial for diagnosing Parkinson's disease (PD). Traditionally, the finger-tapping test has been used, relying on subjective assessments by physicians. Computer vision offers a non-contact and cost-effective alternative for assessing Parkinson's disease.ObjectiveThis study aimed to detect Parkinson's disease by identifying bradykinesia using computer vision in the finger-tapping test and applying machine learning techniques for both hands.MethodsWe recruited 100 patients with PD and healthy controls. Four neurologists assessed bradykinesia, and 10-second smartphone-recorded finger-tapping movements were analyzed using Google MediaPipe Hands software. Six machine learning models were trained using a nested cross-validation framework.ResultsThe differences in tapping scores between the left and right hands were significantly greater in the PD group (2.8 (5.0) vs 0.4 (0.7), p = 0.001) than in the healthy controls. Moreover, the tapping amplitude variation and all amplitude decremental parameters in the PD group differed significantly from those of the standard controls. The PD group had significantly lower tapping scores than the normal subjects (right: 17.9 (7.8)/ left: 17.9 (5.6) vs. right: 24.6 (7.3)/ left: 24.6 (7.2), p ConclusionsA computer vision method can accurately detect bradykinesia using the tapping feature from the finger-tapping method, which involves the simultaneous tapping of both hands.

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.