Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38771237›Full record

ReviewJMIR medical informatics2024

Machine Learning Models for Parkinson Disease: Systematic Review.

Thasina Tabashum, Robert Cooper Snyder, Megan K O'Brien, Mark V Albert

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR medical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 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. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Machine learning approaches for assessing medication transfer to human breast milk.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. 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

4 authors.

Thasina TabashumDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8955-3397
Robert Cooper SnyderDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-1194-7765
Megan K O'BrienTechnology and Innovation Hub, Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8069-365X
Mark V AlbertDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3977-2895

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: With the increasing availability of data, computing resources, and easier-to-use software libraries, machine learning (ML) is increasingly used in disease detection and prediction, including for Parkinson disease (PD). Despite the large number of studies published every year, very few ML systems have been adopted for real-world use. In particular, a lack of external validity may result in poor performance of these systems in clinical practice. Additional methodological issues in ML design and reporting can also hinder clinical adoption, even for applications that would benefit from such data-driven systems. Objective: To sample the current ML practices in PD applications, we conducted a systematic review of studies published in 2020 and 2021 that used ML models to diagnose PD or track PD progression. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines in PubMed between January 2020 and April 2021, using the following exact string: "Parkinson's" AND ("ML" OR "prediction" OR "classification" OR "detection" or "artificial intelligence" OR "AI"). The search resulted in 1085 publications. After a search query and review, we found 113 publications that used ML for the classification or regression-based prediction of PD or PD-related symptoms. Results: Only 65.5% (74/113) of studies used a holdout test set to avoid potentially inflated accuracies, and approximately half (25/46, 54%) of the studies without a holdout test set did not state this as a potential concern. Surprisingly, 38.9% (44/113) of studies did not report on how or if models were tuned, and an additional 27.4% (31/113) used ad hoc model tuning, which is generally frowned upon in ML model optimization. Only 15% (17/113) of studies performed direct comparisons of results with other models, severely limiting the interpretation of results. Conclusions: This review highlights the notable limitations of current ML systems and techniques that may contribute to a gap between reported performance in research and the real-life applicability of ML models aiming to detect and predict diseases such as PD.

Indexed as

clinical adoptiondeep learningmachine learningParkinson diseasePreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-AnalysesPRISMAsystematic reviewvalidation techniques

Identifiers

PMID38771237
PMCPMC11112052

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.