Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42109693›Full record

ArticleTremor and other hyperkinetic movements (New York, N.Y.)2026

Machine Learning for Differentiating Essential Tremor: A Scoping Review.

David M Fletcher, Kaitlyn E Heintzelman, Sumesh B Ramasamy, Allison Marks, Joseph C Melott, Amy W Amara, Adeel A Memon

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Tremor and other hyperkinetic movements (New York, N.Y.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

David M FletcherSchool of Medicine, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, 26505, USA.ORCID 0009-0004-4546-7453
Kaitlyn E HeintzelmanSchool of Medicine, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, 26505, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6669-4047
Sumesh B RamasamyDepartment of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, 26505, USA.ORCID 0009-0004-8170-0953
Allison MarksDepartment of Biological Sciences, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, 26505, USA.
Joseph C MelottSchool of Medicine, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, 26505, USA.
Amy W AmaraDepartment of Neurology, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0762-9656
Adeel A MemonDepartment of Neurology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, 26505, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9450-6621

Funding

NICHD NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Essential tremor (ET) is the most common movement disorder, affecting ~6% of adults over 65 [1]. Differentiating ET from other tremors remains clinically challenging due to overlapping features and variable presentation. Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly machine learning (ML), has emerged a potential tool to support neurologists by enhancing pattern recognition and complementing traditional assessments in complex cases. This is the first scoping review examining ML's potential role in distinguishing essential tremor from other tremor types. Methods: A systematic, scoping search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus through April 2025, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines-ScR [2]. Studies applying AI to distinguish ET from other tremors were included. Of 548 studies screened, 97 underwent full-text review, with data extracted from 46. Results: 46 included studies encompassed 6,051 patients, including 2,358 with ET. ML models utilized diverse inputs: accelerometers, gyroscopes, voice recordings, Archimedes spirals, EMG, and video. Common algorithms were included vector machines (18 articles), k-nearest neighbors (9 articles), and convolutional neural networks (8 articles). There was a high amount of heterogeneity in reporting data, severely limiting between study comparisons. Reported classification accuracies ranged from 60% to 100% (mean: 89%). However, heterogeneity in data types, methodologies, and reporting limited cross-study comparability. Conclusions: ML shows promise as a decision-support tool by recognizing tremor features that may complement, but not replace, expert clinical assessment, particularly in diagnostically ambiguous cases. To enable clinical adoption, future studies must address current heterogeneity, develop standardized datasets, implement automated preprocessing, and focus on clinically feasible data sources.

Indexed as

Essential TremorMachine LearningDiagnosis, DifferentialHumansArtificial IntelligenceEssential TremorMachine LearningMovement DisordersScoping Review

Identifiers

PMID42109693
PMCPMC13155088

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.