Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32073441›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in neurology2020

Data science in neurodegenerative disease: its capabilities, limitations, and perspectives.

Sepehr Golriz Khatami, Sarah Mubeen, Martin Hofmann-Apitius

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for cognitive and emotional symptoms in neurodegenerative diseases: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Modeling NeurodegenerationFrontiers in neuroinformatics · 2021
    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

3 authors.

Sepehr Golriz KhatamiDepartment of Bioinformatics, Fraunhofer Institute for Algorithms and Scientific Computing, Sankt Augustin.
Sarah MubeenDepartment of Bioinformatics, Fraunhofer Institute for Algorithms and Scientific Computing, Sankt Augustin.
Martin Hofmann-ApitiusDepartment of Bioinformatics, Fraunhofer Institute for Algorithms and Scientific Computing, Sankt Augustin.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewWith the advancement of computational approaches and abundance of biomedical data, a broad range of neurodegenerative disease models have been developed. In this review, we argue that computational models can be both relevant and useful in neurodegenerative disease research and although the current established models have limitations in clinical practice, artificial intelligence has the potential to overcome deficiencies encountered by these models, which in turn can improve our understanding of disease. RECENT

findingsIn recent years, diverse computational approaches have been used to shed light on different aspects of neurodegenerative disease models. For example, linear and nonlinear mixed models, self-modeling regression, differential equation models, and event-based models have been applied to provide a better understanding of disease progression patterns and biomarker trajectories. Additionally, the Cox-regression technique, Bayesian network models, and deep-learning-based approaches have been used to predict the probability of future incidence of disease, whereas nonnegative matrix factorization, nonhierarchical cluster analysis, hierarchical agglomerative clustering, and deep-learning-based approaches have been employed to stratify patients based on their disease subtypes. Furthermore, the interpretation of neurodegenerative disease data is possible through knowledge-based models which use prior knowledge to complement data-driven analyses. These knowledge-based models can include pathway-centric approaches to establish pathways perturbed in a given condition, as well as disease-specific knowledge maps, which elucidate the mechanisms involved in a given disease. Collectively, these established models have revealed high granular details and insights into neurodegenerative disease models. SUMMARY: In conjunction with increasingly advanced computational approaches, a wide spectrum of neurodegenerative disease models, which can be broadly categorized into data-driven and knowledge-driven, have been developed. We review the state of the art data and knowledge-driven models and discuss the necessary steps which are vital to bring them into clinical application.

Indexed as

Data ScienceAlgorithmsHumansModels, StatisticalNeurodegenerative Diseases

Identifiers

PMID32073441
PMCPMC7077964

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.