ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2025
Testing machine learning algorithms to evaluate fluctuating and cognitive profiles in Parkinson's disease by motion sensors and EEG data.
Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine learning methods for the detection and prediction of cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We aimed to test machine learning algorithms for classifying fluctuating and cognitive profiles in Parkinson's Disease (PD) by using multimodal instrumental data. Methods: Data of motion transducers while performing instrumented Timed-Up-and-Go test (iTUG) (N = 30 subjects) and EEG (N = 49 subjects) from PD patients were collected. Study patients were classified based on cognitive profile ("mild cognitive impairment" by standardized criteria vs "normal cognition") and L-dopa acute motor response ("fluctuating" vs "stable") to be analyzed by machine learning algorithms and compared with historical control data from healthy subjects group-matched by age for both iTUG and EEG study (for iTUG: N = 31 subjects; for EEG: N = 27 subjects). Results: Artificial Neural Network-based models revealed the best performances when applied to specific phases of the iTUG in differentiating PD vs controls (91 % accuracy) as well as in differentiating cognitive profile (95 % accuracy) and motor response status (96 % accuracy) among PD subjects. K-Nearest Neighbors revealed best performances when applied to EEG data in discriminating PD vs controls (85 % accuracy). Random Forest Classifier revealed best performances when applied to EEG data in differentiating cognitive profile (96 % accuracy) and motor response status (91 % accuracy) among PD subjects. Conclusions: By processing multimodal instrumental data, specific machine learning algorithms have been identified which discriminated L-dopa responsiveness and cognitive profile in PD. Further studies are needed to validate them in independent samples using a user-friendly software interface created
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.