ArticleCurrent medical science2025
Deep Learning-Based Diagnostic Model for Parkinson's Disease Using Handwritten Spiral and Wave Images.
Article in Current medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An efficient multiplier-based FPGA CNN accelerator for Parkinson's disease detection using hand-drawn circle images.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and validate a deep neural network (DNN) model for diagnosing Parkinson's Disease (PD) using handwritten spiral and wave images, and to compare its performance with various machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models.
methodsThe study utilized a dataset of 204 images (102 spiral and 102 wave) from PD patients and healthy subjects. The images were preprocessed using the Histogram of Oriented Gradients (HOG) descriptor and augmented to increase dataset diversity. The DNN model was designed with an input layer, three convolutional layers, two max-pooling layers, two dropout layers, and two dense layers. The model was trained and evaluated using metrics such as accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and loss. The DNN model was compared with nine ML models (random forest, logistic regression, AdaBoost, k-nearest neighbor, gradient boost, naïve Bayes, support vector machine, decision tree) and two DL models (convolutional neural network, DenseNet-201).
resultsThe DNN model outperformed all other models in diagnosing PD from handwritten spiral and wave images. On spiral images, the DNN model achieved accuracies of 41.24% over naïve Bayes, 31.24% over decision tree, and 27.9% over support vector machine. On wave images, the DNN model achieved accuracies of 40% over naïve Bayes, 36.67% over decision tree, and 30% over support vector machine. The DNN model demonstrated significant improvements in sensitivity and specificity compared to other models.
conclusionsThe DNN model significantly improves the accuracy of PD diagnosis using handwritten spiral and wave images, outperforming several ML and DL models. This approach offers a promising diagnostic tool for early PD detection and provides a foundation for future work to incorporate additional features and enhance detection accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40029495What 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.