ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2025
Sex-Specific Imaging Biomarkers for Parkinson's Disease Diagnosis: A Machine Learning Analysis.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to identify sex-specific imaging biomarkers for Parkinson's disease (PD) based on multiple MRI morphological features by using machine learning methods. Participants were categorized into female and male subgroups, and various structural morphological features were extracted. An ensemble Lasso (EnLasso) method was employed to identify a stable optimal feature subset for each sex-based subgroup. Eight typical classifiers were adopted to construct classification models for PD and HC, respectively, to validate whether models specific to sex subgroups could bolster the precision of PD identification. Finally, statistical analysis and correlation tests were carried out on significant brain region features to identify potential sex-specific imaging biomarkers. The best model (MLP) based on the female subgroup and male subgroup achieved average classification accuracy of 92.83% and 92.11%, respectively, which were better than that of the model based on the overall samples (86.88%) and the overall model incorporating gender factor (87.52%). In addition, the most discriminative feature of PD among males was the lh 6r (FD), but among females, it was the lh PreS (GI). The findings indicate that the sex-specific PD diagnosis model yields a significantly higher classification performance compared to previous models that included all participants. Additionally, the male subgroup exhibited a greater number of brain region changes than the female subgroup, suggesting sex-specific differences in PD risk markers. This study underscore the importance of stratifying data by sex and offer insights into sex-specific variations in PD phenotypes, which could aid in the development of precise and personalized diagnostic approaches in the early stages of the disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.