Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38646447›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2024

Machine learning based on the EEG and structural MRI can predict different stages of vascular cognitive impairment.

Zihao Li, Meini Wu, Changhao Yin, Zhenqi Wang, Jianhang Wang, Lingyu Chen, Weina Zhao

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zihao LiDepartment of Neurology, Hongqi Hospital Affiliated to Mudanjiang Medical University, Mudanjiang, China.
Meini WuDepartment of Neurology, Hongqi Hospital Affiliated to Mudanjiang Medical University, Mudanjiang, China.
Changhao YinDepartment of Neurology, Hongqi Hospital Affiliated to Mudanjiang Medical University, Mudanjiang, China.
Zhenqi WangDepartment of Neurology, Hongqi Hospital Affiliated to Mudanjiang Medical University, Mudanjiang, China.
Jianhang WangDepartment of Neurology, Hongqi Hospital Affiliated to Mudanjiang Medical University, Mudanjiang, China.
Lingyu ChenDepartment of Neurology, Hongqi Hospital Affiliated to Mudanjiang Medical University, Mudanjiang, China.
Weina ZhaoDepartment of Neurology, Hongqi Hospital Affiliated to Mudanjiang Medical University, Mudanjiang, China.
Mudanjiang Medical University · CNTaizhou Second People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) is a major cause of cognitive impairment in the elderly and a co-factor in the development and progression of most neurodegenerative diseases. With the continuing development of neuroimaging, multiple markers can be combined to provide richer biological information, but little is known about their diagnostic value in VCI. Methods: A total of 83 subjects participated in our study, including 32 patients with vascular cognitive impairment with no dementia (VCIND), 21 patients with vascular dementia (VD), and 30 normal controls (NC). We utilized resting-state quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) power spectra, structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI) for feature screening, and combined them with support vector machines to predict VCI patients at different disease stages. Results: The classification performance of sMRI outperformed qEEG when distinguishing VD from NC (AUC of 0.90 vs. 0,82), and sMRI also outperformed qEEG when distinguishing VD from VCIND (AUC of 0.8 vs. 0,0.64), but both underperformed when distinguishing VCIND from NC (AUC of 0.58 vs. 0.56). In contrast, the joint model based on qEEG and sMRI features showed relatively good classification accuracy (AUC of 0.72) to discriminate VCIND from NC, higher than that of either qEEG or sMRI alone. Conclusion: Patients at varying stages of VCI exhibit diverse levels of brain structure and neurophysiological abnormalities. EEG serves as an affordable and convenient diagnostic means to differentiate between different VCI stages. A machine learning model that utilizes EEG and sMRI as composite markers is highly valuable in distinguishing diverse VCI stages and in individually tailoring the diagnosis.

Indexed as

applications of support vector machinemachine learningquantitative electroencephalogramstructural magnetic resonance imagingvascular cognitive dysfunction

Identifiers

PMID38646447
PMCPMC11026635
OpenAlexW4393986828

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.