A Computerized Analysis with Machine Learning Techniques for the Diagnosis of Parkinson’s Disease: Past Studies and Future Perspectives

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disease of the brain that causes motor symptoms including slower movement, rigidity, tremor, and imbalance in addition to other problems like Alzheimer’s disease (AD), psychiatric problems, insomnia, anxiety, and sensory abnormalities. Techniques including artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and deep learning (DL) have been established for the classification of PD and normal controls (NC) with similar therapeutic appearances in order to address these problems and improve the diagnostic procedure for PD. In this article, we examine a literature survey of research articles published up to September 2022 in order to present an in-depth analysis of the use of datasets, various modalities, experimental setups, and architectures that have been applied in the diagnosis of subjective disease. This analysis includes a total of 217 research publications with a list of the various datasets, methodologies, and features. These findings suggest that ML/DL methods and novel biomarkers hold promising results for application in medical decision-making, leading to a more methodical and thorough detection of PD. Finally, we highlight the challenges and provide appropriate recommendations on selecting approaches that might be used for subgrouping and connection analysis with structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI), DaTSCAN, and single-photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT) data for future Parkinson’s research.

Related collections

Most cited references 206

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew J L Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2026)

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

0 comments Cited 16134 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A guide to deep learning in healthcare

Andre Esteva, Alexandre Robicquet, Bharath Ramsundar … (2019)

Here we present deep-learning techniques for healthcare, centering our discussion on deep learning in computer vision, natural language processing, reinforcement learning, and generalized methods. We describe how these computational techniques can impact a few key areas of medicine and explore how to build end-to-end systems. Our discussion of computer vision focuses largely on medical imaging, and we describe the application of natural language processing to domains such as electronic health record data. Similarly, reinforcement learning is discussed in the context of robotic-assisted surgery, and generalized deep-learning methods for genomics are reviewed.

0 comments Cited 751 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Key challenges for delivering clinical impact with artificial intelligence

Christopher J G Kelly, Alan Karthikesalingam, Mustafa Suleyman … (2019)

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) research in healthcare is accelerating rapidly, with potential applications being demonstrated across various domains of medicine. However, there are currently limited examples of such techniques being successfully deployed into clinical practice. This article explores the main challenges and limitations of AI in healthcare, and considers the steps required to translate these potentially transformative technologies from research to clinical practice. Main body Key challenges for the translation of AI systems in healthcare include those intrinsic to the science of machine learning, logistical difficulties in implementation, and consideration of the barriers to adoption as well as of the necessary sociocultural or pathway changes. Robust peer-reviewed clinical evaluation as part of randomised controlled trials should be viewed as the gold standard for evidence generation, but conducting these in practice may not always be appropriate or feasible. Performance metrics should aim to capture real clinical applicability and be understandable to intended users. Regulation that balances the pace of innovation with the potential for harm, alongside thoughtful post-market surveillance, is required to ensure that patients are not exposed to dangerous interventions nor deprived of access to beneficial innovations. Mechanisms to enable direct comparisons of AI systems must be developed, including the use of independent, local and representative test sets. Developers of AI algorithms must be vigilant to potential dangers, including dataset shift, accidental fitting of confounders, unintended discriminatory bias, the challenges of generalisation to new populations, and the unintended negative consequences of new algorithms on health outcomes. Conclusion The safe and timely translation of AI research into clinically validated and appropriately regulated systems that can benefit everyone is challenging. Robust clinical evaluation, using metrics that are intuitive to clinicians and ideally go beyond measures of technical accuracy to include quality of care and patient outcomes, is essential. Further work is required (1) to identify themes of algorithmic bias and unfairness while developing mitigations to address these, (2) to reduce brittleness and improve generalisability, and (3) to develop methods for improved interpretability of machine learning predictions. If these goals can be achieved, the benefits for patients are likely to be transformational.