ArticleClinical and translational science2024
Comparing machine learning and deep learning models to predict cognition progression in Parkinson's disease.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- GLP-1 agonists in neurodegeneration: a multimodal biomarker-guided approach.Trends in molecular medicine · 2026Review
- Characteristics and mechanisms of cognitive impairment in Parkinson disease.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2026Review
- Predicting mild cognitive impairment in patients with Parkinson's disease by integrating striatal MRI radiomics with clinical features.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Clinical and Translational Science: From Bench Insights to Bedside Impact.Clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Comparing machine learning and deep learning models to predict cognition progression in Parkinson's disease.Clinical and translational science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cognitive decline in Parkinson's disease (PD) varies widely. While models to predict cognitive progression exist, comparing traditional probabilistic models to deep learning methods remains understudied. This study compares sequential modeling techniques to identify cognitive progression in individuals with and without PD. Using data from the Parkinson's Progression Marker Initiative, shallow Markov, deep recurrent (long short-term memory [LSTM]), and nonrecurrent (temporal fusion transformer [TFT]) models were compared to predict cognitive status over time. Cognitive status was categorized into normal cognition (NC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and dementia. Predictions were made annually for up to 3 years using clinical data, including demographics, cognitive assessments, PD severity, and medical history. Each approach was evaluated using inverse probability weighted (IPW-) F1 scores. An ensemble method combined outputs from the Markov, LSTM, and TFT models. The dataset included 917 individuals (53% PD; 30% at risk for PD; 17% Healthy Controls). The TFT model outperformed others across all annual periods (IPW-F1 = 0.468) compared to the Markov (IPW-F1 = 0.349) and LSTM (IPW-F1 = 0.414) models, with improved performance using an ensemble approach (IPW-F1 = 0.502). For MCI and dementia predictions, which were rarer occurrences compared to NC status (ratios: 50:8:1), the TFT model consistently outperformed competing models, achieving IPW-F1 scores of 0.496 and 0.533 for MCI and dementia, respectively. In conclusion, sequential deep learning models like TFT, which mitigate long-term memory loss and can interpret complex, high-dimensional data, perform best overall in predicting clinically important cognitive transitions. These methods should be further explored for predicting degenerative conditions.
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.