Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
IntroductionFall risk assessment in Parkinson's Disease (PD) is critical for preventing patient injuries; however, traditional clinical scales are often constrained by their semi-quantitative nature and time-consuming administration. This study aimed to develop and validate an analytical framework integrating Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD) and machine learning for the objective classification of fall risk in PD patients.MethodsData from 32 PD patients under four standing conditions were analyzed, with fall risk labels defined based on a Mini-BESTest score cutoff of ≤21. Center of Pressure (COP) signals were first decomposed into Intrinsic Mode Functions (IMFs) using EMD, from which multi-dimensional features were extracted. Subsequently, the Sequential Forward Floating Selection (SFFS) algorithm was employed to identify a core feature subset, and the performance of five classifiers-Random Forest (RF), Decision Tree (DT), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB), Logistic Regression (LR), and Support Vector Machine (SVM)-was evaluated using Leave-One-Subject-Out Cross-Validation (LOSO-CV). Finally, a multi-trial probability aggregation strategy was introduced to assess subject-level risk.ResultsResults indicated that the rigid surface eyes-closed (rs ec) condition yielded the optimal discriminatory capability. The SFFS algorithm identified a parsimonious 3-dimensional feature subset (COPap_IMF1_BinEntropy, COPml_IMF1_STD, COPap_IMF2_TotalPower), which enabled tree-based classifiers to exhibit superior performance. Notably, DT and RF achieved highly balanced sensitivity and specificity, reaching a maximum subject-level AUC of 0.96.DiscussionIn conclusion, EMD-derived multi-scale features can precisely capture postural control deficits in PD, offering a promising technical solution for the future development of efficient and objective PD clinical monitoring tools.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.