4.2 Article

Predicting dementia development in Parkinson's disease using Bayesian network classifiers

期刊

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH-NEUROIMAGING
卷 213, 期 2, 页码 92-98

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2012.06.001

关键词

MCI; MRI; Neuroimaging; Freesurfer segmentation; Machine learning methods; Feature selection

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Health [FIS 07/770]
  2. Sociedad Espanola de Radiologia Medica [SERAM 06-10]
  3. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [TIN2010-20900-004-04, 2010-CSD2007-00018]
  4. Basque Government Saiotek and Research Groups Support programmes [IT-242-07]
  5. Port d'Informacio Cientifica, a consortium of the Generalitat de Catalunya
  6. CIEMAT
  7. Institut de Fisica d'Altes Energies
  8. Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Parkinson's disease (PD) has broadly been associated with mild cognitive impairment (PDMCI) and dementia (PDD). Researchers have studied surrogate, neuroanatomic biomarkers provided by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) that may help in the early diagnosis of this condition. In this article, four classification models (naive Bayes, multivariate filter-based nave Bayes, filter selective naive Bayes and support vector machines, SVM) have been applied to evaluate their capacity to discriminate between cognitively intact patients with Parkinson's disease (PDCI), PDMCI and PDD. For this purpose, the MRI studies of 45 subjects (16 PDCI, 15 PDMCI and 14 PDD) were acquired and post-processed with Freesurfer, obtaining 112 variables (volumes of subcortical structures and thickness of cortical parcels) per subject. A multivariate filter-based naive Bayes model was found to be the best classifier, having the highest cross-validated sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. Additionally, the most relevant variables related to dementia in PD, as predicted by our classifiers, were cerebral white matter, and volumes of the lateral ventricles and hippocampi. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据