Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27494614›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Predictive Big Data Analytics: A Study of Parkinson's Disease Using Large, Complex, Heterogeneous, Incongruent, Multi-Source and Incomplete Observations.

Ivo D Dinov, Ben Heavner, Ming Tang, Gustavo Glusman, Kyle Chard, Mike Darcy, Ravi Madduri, Judy Pa, Cathie Spino, Carl Kesselman and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Cycle-Consistent Zero-Shot Through-Plane Super-Resolution for Anisotropic Head MRI.Information processing in medical imaging : proceedings of the ... conference · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Ivo D DinovStatistics Online Computational Resource, School of Nursing, Michigan Institute for Data Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.
Ben HeavnerInstitute for Systems Biology, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Ming TangStatistics Online Computational Resource, School of Nursing, Michigan Institute for Data Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.
Gustavo GlusmanInstitute for Systems Biology, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Kyle ChardComputation Institute, University of Chicago and Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
Mike DarcyInformation Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
Ravi MadduriComputation Institute, University of Chicago and Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
Judy PaStevens Neuroimaging and Informatics Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
Cathie SpinoUdall Center of Excellence for Parkinson's Disease Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.
Carl KesselmanInformation Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
Ian FosterComputation Institute, University of Chicago and Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
Eric W DeutschInstitute for Systems Biology, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Nathan D PriceInstitute for Systems Biology, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
John D Van HornStevens Neuroimaging and Informatics Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
Joseph AmesStevens Neuroimaging and Informatics Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
Kristi ClarkStevens Neuroimaging and Informatics Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
Leroy HoodInstitute for Systems Biology, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Benjamin M HampsteadDepartment of Psychiatry and Michigan Alzheimer's Disease Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.
William DauerUdall Center of Excellence for Parkinson's Disease Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.
Arthur W TogaStevens Neuroimaging and Informatics Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.

Funding

Pilot and Feasibility (P and F) ProgramP30DK089503 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI RANDY J SEELEY · 2010 to 2026
$20.3M
TR&D3: Intrinsic Surface MappingP41EB015922 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI VAN HORN, JOHN DARRELL · 2012 to 2022
$14.1M
TrainingU54EB020406 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI TOGA, ARTHUR W · 2014 to 2018
$12.5M
Public Outreach and Education CoreP50NS091856 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI ALBIN, ROGER L · 2014 to 2019
$10.1M
Pilot Projects CoreP20NR015331 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI LARSON, JANET L. · 2014 to 2018
$1.3M
NIBIB NIH HHS U54 EB020406NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK089503NINDS NIH HHS P50 NS091856NINR NIH HHS P20 NR015331
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA unique archive of Big Data on Parkinson's Disease is collected, managed and disseminated by the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI). The integration of such complex and heterogeneous Big Data from multiple sources offers unparalleled opportunities to study the early stages of prevalent neurodegenerative processes, track their progression and quickly identify the efficacies of alternative treatments. Many previous human and animal studies have examined the relationship of Parkinson's disease (PD) risk to trauma, genetics, environment, co-morbidities, or life style. The defining characteristics of Big Data-large size, incongruency, incompleteness, complexity, multiplicity of scales, and heterogeneity of information-generating sources-all pose challenges to the classical techniques for data management, processing, visualization and interpretation. We propose, implement, test and validate complementary model-based and model-free approaches for PD classification and prediction. To explore PD risk using Big Data methodology, we jointly processed complex PPMI imaging, genetics, clinical and demographic data. METHODS AND

findingsCollective representation of the multi-source data facilitates the aggregation and harmonization of complex data elements. This enables joint modeling of the complete data, leading to the development of Big Data analytics, predictive synthesis, and statistical validation. Using heterogeneous PPMI data, we developed a comprehensive protocol for end-to-end data characterization, manipulation, processing, cleaning, analysis and validation. Specifically, we (i) introduce methods for rebalancing imbalanced cohorts, (ii) utilize a wide spectrum of classification methods to generate consistent and powerful phenotypic predictions, and (iii) generate reproducible machine-learning based classification that enables the reporting of model parameters and diagnostic forecasting based on new data. We evaluated several complementary model-based predictive approaches, which failed to generate accurate and reliable diagnostic predictions. However, the results of several machine-learning based classification methods indicated significant power to predict Parkinson's disease in the PPMI subjects (consistent accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity exceeding 96%, confirmed using statistical n-fold cross-validation). Clinical (e.g., Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) scores), demographic (e.g., age), genetics (e.g., rs34637584, chr12), and derived neuroimaging biomarker (e.g., cerebellum shape index) data all contributed to the predictive analytics and diagnostic forecasting.

conclusionsModel-free Big Data machine learning-based classification methods (e.g., adaptive boosting, support vector machines) can outperform model-based techniques in terms of predictive precision and reliability (e.g., forecasting patient diagnosis). We observed that statistical rebalancing of cohort sizes yields better discrimination of group differences, specifically for predictive analytics based on heterogeneous and incomplete PPMI data. UPDRS scores play a critical role in predicting diagnosis, which is expected based on the clinical definition of Parkinson's disease. Even without longitudinal UPDRS data, however, the accuracy of model-free machine learning based classification is over 80%. The methods, software and protocols developed here are openly shared and can be employed to study other neurodegenerative disorders (e.g., Alzheimer's, Huntington's, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), as well as for other predictive Big Data analytics applications.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualAgedDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleNeuroimagingParkinson DiseaseSupport Vector Machine

Identifiers

PMID27494614
PMCPMC4975403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.