ArticleBrain sciences2026
A Comparison of Machine Learning Models for Classification of Parkinson's Disease During a Working Memory and Sustained Attention Task.
Article in Brain sciences, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesIndividuals with Parkinson's disease (PD) experience deficits in working memory (WM) and sustained attention (ATTN), but diagnosing and monitoring these deficits remains challenging. This study compares machine learning (ML) classification models trained on EEG and pupillometry data from WM and ATTN tasks to identify task-specific and shared cognitive biomarkers of PD.
methodsEEG and pupillometry were recorded from PD patients and healthy controls (HC) during a visual change detection WM task and a continuous performance ATTN task. A standardized toolbox extracted 108 features, reduced via PCA and recursive elimination (RE) and classified using an SVM-RBF within a nested, 5-fold cross-validated pipeline, with class balancing (SMOTE) and feature selection performed strictly within training folds to prevent leakage.
resultsOn internal test folds, WM achieved 71% accuracy (F1 = 0.701) and ATTN achieved 73% (F1 = 0.699); on an independent hold-out set, WM achieved 63% accuracy (F1 = 0.626) and ATTN achieved 70% (F1 = 0.623). ATTN showed higher accuracy and precision, WM showed higher recall, and univariate analyses independently supported several top-ranked features (e.g., theta/beta and alpha/theta ratios); PAI and FAA, though top features in both tasks, reached univariate significance only in ATTN. These results indicate WM and ATTN yield complementary, task-linked neurophysiological signatures relevant to PD classification.
conclusionAt its current stage, this pipeline functions as a research tool for biomarker discovery rather than a clinical diagnostic, though larger, externally validated samples could support future screening and monitoring applications.
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.