Mining imaging and clinical data with machine learning approaches for the diagnosis and early detection of Parkinson\u27s disease

Parkinson\u27s disease (PD) is a common, progressive, and currently incurable neurodegenerative movement disorder. The diagnosis of PD is challenging, especially in the differential diagnosis of parkinsonism and in early PD detection. Due to the advantages of machine learning such as learning complex data patterns and making inferences for individuals, machine-learning techniques have been increasingly applied to the diagnosis of PD, and have shown some promising results. Machine-learning-based imaging applications have made it possible to help differentiate parkinsonism and detect PD at early stages automatically in a number of neuroimaging studies. Comparative studies have shown that machine-learning-based SPECT image analysis applications in PD have outperformed conventional semi-quantitative analysis in detecting PD-associated dopaminergic degeneration, performed comparably well as experts\u27 visual inspection, and helped improve PD diagnostic accuracy of radiologists. Using combined multi-modal (imaging and clinical) data in these applications may further enhance PD diagnosis and early detection. To integrate machine-learning-based diagnostic applications into clinical systems, further validation and optimization of these applications are needed to make them accurate and reliable. It is anticipated that machine-learning techniques will further help improve differential diagnosis of parkinsonism and early detection of PD, which may reduce the error rate of PD diagnosis and help detect PD at pre-motor stage to make it possible for early treatments (e.g., neuroprotective treatment) to slow down PD progression, prevent severe motor symptoms from emerging, and relieve patients from suffering

Differentiation of Alzheimer's disease dementia, mild cognitive impairment and normal condition using PET-FDG and AV-45 imaging : a machine-learning approach

Nous avons utilisé l'imagerie TEP avec les traceurs F18-FDG et AV45 en conjonction avec les méthodes de classification du domaine du "Machine Learning". Les images ont été acquises en mode dynamique, une image toutes les 5 minutes. Les données ont été transformées par Analyse en Composantes Principales et Analyse en Composantes Indépendantes. Les images proviennent de trois sources différentes: la base de données ADNI (Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative) et deux protocoles réalisés au sein du centre TEP de l'hôpital Purpan. Pour évaluer la performance de la classification nous avons eu recours à la méthode de validation croisée LOOCV (Leave One Out Cross Validation). Nous donnons une comparaison entre les deux méthodes de classification les plus utilisées, SVM (Support Vector Machine) et les réseaux de neurones artificiels (ANN). La combinaison donnant le meilleur taux de classification semble être SVM et le traceur AV45. Cependant les confusions les plus importantes sont entre les patients MCI et les sujets normaux. Les patients Alzheimer se distinguent relativement mieux puisqu'ils sont retrouvés souvent à plus de 90%. Nous avons évalué la généralisation de telles méthodes de classification en réalisant l'apprentissage sur un ensemble de données et la classification sur un autre ensemble. Nous avons pu atteindre une spécificité de 100% et une sensibilité supérieure à 81%. La méthode SVM semble avoir une meilleure sensibilité que les réseaux de neurones. L'intérêt d'un tel travail est de pouvoir aider à terme au diagnostic de la maladie d'Alzheimer.We used PET imaging with tracers F18-FDG and AV45 in conjunction with the classification methods in the field of "Machine Learning". PET images were acquired in dynamic mode, an image every 5 minutes.The images used come from three different sources: the database ADNI (Alzheimer's Disease Neuro-Imaging Initiative, University of California Los Angeles) and two protocols performed in the PET center of the Purpan Hospital. The classification was applied after processing dynamic images by Principal Component Analysis and Independent Component Analysis. The data were separated into training set and test set. To evaluate the performance of the classification we used the method of cross-validation LOOCV (Leave One Out Cross Validation). We give a comparison between the two most widely used classification methods, SVM (Support Vector Machine) and artificial neural networks (ANN) for both tracers. The combination giving the best classification rate seems to be SVM and AV45 tracer. However the most important confusion is found between MCI patients and normal subjects. Alzheimer's patients differ somewhat better since they are often found in more than 90%. We evaluated the generalization of our methods by making learning from set of data and classification on another set . We reached the specifity score of 100% and sensitivity score of more than 81%. SVM method showed a bettrer sensitivity than Artificial Neural Network method. The value of such work is to help the clinicians in diagnosing Alzheimer's disease