Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31601182›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2019

An application of machine learning with feature selection to improve diagnosis and classification of neurodegenerative disorders.

Josefa Díaz Álvarez, Jordi A Matias-Guiu, María Nieves Cabrera-Martín, José L Risco-Martín, José L Ayala

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Josefa Díaz ÁlvarezDep. of Computer Architecture and Communications, Universidad de Extremadura, Mérida-Badajoz, Spain. mjdiaz@unex.es.
Jordi A Matias-GuiuDep. of Neurology, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, San Carlos Research Health Institute (IdISSC), Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
María Nieves Cabrera-MartínDep. of Neurology, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, San Carlos Research Health Institute (IdISSC), Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
José L Risco-MartínDep. of Computer Architecture and Automation, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
José L AyalaDep. of Computer Architecture and Automation, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe analysis of health and medical data is crucial for improving the diagnosis precision, treatments and prevention. In this field, machine learning techniques play a key role. However, the amount of health data acquired from digital machines has high dimensionality and not all data acquired from digital machines are relevant for a particular disease. Primary Progressive Aphasia (PPA) is a neurodegenerative syndrome including several specific diseases, and it is a good model to implement machine learning analyses. In this work, we applied five feature selection algorithms to identify the set of relevant features from 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography images of the main areas affected by PPA from patient records. On the other hand, we carried out classification and clustering algorithms before and after the feature selection process to contrast both results with those obtained in a previous work. We aimed to find the best classifier and the more relevant features from the WEKA tool to propose further a framework for automatic help on diagnosis. Dataset contains data from 150 FDG-PET imaging studies of 91 patients with a clinic prognosis of PPA, which were examined twice, and 28 controls. Our method comprises six different stages: (i) feature extraction, (ii) expertise knowledge supervision (iii) classification process, (iv) comparing classification results for feature selection, (v) clustering process after feature selection, and (vi) comparing clustering results with those obtained in a previous work.

resultsExperimental tests confirmed clustering results from a previous work. Although classification results for some algorithms are not decisive for reducing features precisely, Principal Components Analisys (PCA) results exhibited similar or even better performances when compared to those obtained with all features.

conclusionsAlthough reducing the dimensionality does not means a general improvement, the set of features is almost halved and results are better or quite similar. Finally, it is interesting how these results expose a finer grain classification of patients according to the neuroanatomy of their disease.

Indexed as

Machine LearningAphasia, Primary ProgressiveComputational BiologyFemaleHumansMaleNeurodegenerative DiseasesPositron-Emission TomographyClustering AnalysisMachine learning primary progressive aphasiaSupervised algorithmUnsupervised algorithm

Identifiers

PMID31601182
PMCPMC6788103

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.