Machine Learning for the Diagnosis of Parkinson's Disease: A Review of Literature

Abstract

Diagnosis of Parkinson's disease (PD) is commonly based on medical observations and assessment of clinical signs, including the characterization of a variety of motor symptoms. However, traditional diagnostic approaches may suffer from subjectivity as they rely on the evaluation of movements that are sometimes subtle to human eyes and therefore difficult to classify, leading to possible misclassification. In the meantime, early non-motor symptoms of PD may be mild and can be caused by many other conditions. Therefore, these symptoms are often overlooked, making diagnosis of PD at an early stage challenging. To address these difficulties and to refine the diagnosis and assessment procedures of PD, machine learning methods have been implemented for the classification of PD and healthy controls or patients with similar clinical presentations (e.g., movement disorders or other Parkinsonian syndromes). To provide a comprehensive overview of data modalities and machine learning methods that have been used in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of PD, in this study, we conducted a literature review of studies published until February 14, 2020, using the PubMed and IEEE Xplore databases. A total of 209 studies were included, extracted for relevant information and presented in this review, with an investigation of their aims, sources of data, types of data, machine learning methods and associated outcomes. These studies demonstrate a high potential for adaptation of machine learning methods and novel biomarkers in clinical decision making, leading to increasingly systematic, informed diagnosis of PD.

Introduction

Parkinson's disease (PD) is one of the most common neurodegenerative diseases with a prevalence rate of 1% in the population above 60 years old, affecting 1–2 people per 1,000 (Tysnes and Storstein, 2017). The estimated global population affected by PD has more than doubled from 1990 to 2016 (from 2.5 million to 6.1 million), which is a result of increased number of elderly people and age-standardized prevalence rates (Dorsey et al., 2018). PD is a progressive neurological disorder associated with motor and non-motor features (Jankovic, 2008) which comprises multiple aspects of movements, including planning, initiation and execution (Contreras-Vidal and Stelmach, 1995).

During its development, movement-related symptoms such as tremor, rigidity and difficulties in initiation can be observed, prior to cognitive and behavioral alterations including dementia (Opara et al., 2012). PD severely affects patients' quality of life (QoL), social functions and family relationships, and places heavy economic burdens at individual and society levels (Johnson et al., 2013; Kowal et al., 2013; Yang and Chen, 2017).

The diagnosis of PD is traditionally based on motor symptoms. Despite the establishment of cardinal signs of PD in clinical assessments, most of the rating scales used in the evaluation of disease severity have not been fully evaluated and validated (Jankovic, 2008). Although non-motor symptoms (e.g., cognitive changes such as problems with attention and planning, sleep disorders, sensory abnormalities such as olfactory dysfunction) are present in many patients prior to the onset of PD (Jankovic, 2008; Tremblay et al., 2017), they lack specificity, are complicated to assess and/or yield variability from patient to patient (Zesiewicz et al., 2006). Therefore, non-motor symptoms do not yet allow for diagnosis of PD independently (Braak et al., 2003), although some have been used as supportive diagnostic criteria (Postuma et al., 2015).

Machine learning techniques are being increasingly applied in the healthcare sector. As its name implies, machine learning allows for a computer program to learn and extract meaningful representation from data in a semi-automatic manner. For the diagnosis of PD, machine learning models have been applied to a multitude of data modalities, including handwritten patterns (Drotár et al., 2015; Pereira et al., 2018), movement (Yang et al., 2009; Wahid et al., 2015; Pham and Yan, 2018), neuroimaging (Cherubini et al., 2014a; Choi et al., 2017; Segovia et al., 2019), voice (Sakar et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2014), cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) (Lewitt et al., 2013; Maass et al., 2020), cardiac scintigraphy (Nuvoli et al., 2019), serum (Váradi et al., 2019), and optical coherence tomography (OCT) (Nunes et al., 2019). Machine learning also allows for combining different modalities, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) data (Cherubini et al., 2014b; Wang et al., 2017), in the diagnosis of PD. By using machine learning approaches, we may therefore identify relevant features that are not traditionally used in the clinical diagnosis of PD and rely on these alternative measures to detect PD in preclinical stages or atypical forms.

In recent years, the number of publications on the application of machine learning to the diagnosis of PD has increased. Although previous studies have reviewed the use of machine learning in the diagnosis and assessment of PD, they were limited to the analysis of motor symptoms, kinematics, and wearable sensor data (Ahlrichs and Lawo, 2013; Ramdhani et al., 2018; Belić et al., 2019). Moreover, some of these reviews only included studies published between 2015 and 2016 (Pereira et al., 2019). In this study, we aim to (a) comprehensively summarize all published studies that applied machine learning models to the diagnosis of PD for an exhaustive overview of data sources, data types, machine learning models, and associated outcomes, (b) assess and compare the feasibility and efficiency of different machine learning methods in the diagnosis of PD, and (c) provide machine learning practitioners interested in the diagnosis of PD with an overview of previously used models and data modalities and the associated outcomes, and recommendations on how experimental protocols and results could be reported to facilitate reproduction. As a result, the application of machine learning to clinical and non-clinical data of different modalities has often led to high diagnostic accuracies in human participants, therefore may encourage the adaptation of machine learning algorithms and novel biomarkers in clinical settings to assist more accurate and informed decision making.

Methods

Search Strategy

A literature search was conducted on the PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) and IEEE Xplore (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/advanced/command) databases on February 14, 2020 for all returned results. Boolean search strings used are shown in Table 1. No additional filters were applied in the literature search. All retrieved studies were systematically identified, screened and extracted for relevant information following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Moher et al., 2009).

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Data Extraction

The following information is included in the data extraction table: (1) objectives, (2) type of diagnosis (diagnosis, differential diagnosis, sub-typing), (3) data source, (4) data type, (5) number of subjects, (6) machine learning method(s), splitting strategy and cross validation, (7) associated outcomes, (8) year, and (9) reference.

For studies published online first and archived in another year, “year of publication” was defined as the year during which the study was published online. If this information was unavailable, the year in which the article was copyrighted was regarded as the year of publication. For studies that introduced novel models and used existing models merely for comparison, information related to the novel models was extracted. Classification of PD and scans without evidence for dopaminergic deficit (SWEDD) was treated as subtyping (Erro et al., 2016).

Study Objectives

To outline the different goals and objectives of included studies, we have further categorized them based on the type of diagnosis and their general aim. From the perspective of diagnostics, these studies could be divided into (a) the diagnosis or detection of PD (which compares data collected from PD patients and healthy controls), (b) differential diagnosis (discrimination between patients with idiopathic PD and patients with atypical Parkinsonism), and (c) sub-typing (discrimination among sub-types of PD).

Included studies were also analyzed for their general aim: For studies with a focus on the development of novel technical approaches to be used in the diagnosis of Parkinson's disease, e.g., new machine learning and deep learning models and architectures, data acquisition devices, and feature extraction algorithms that haven't been previously presented and/or employed, we defined them as (a) “methodology” studies. Studies that validate and investigate (a) the application of previously published and validated machine learning and deep learning models, and/or (b) the feasibility of introducing data modalities that are not commonly used in the machine learning-based diagnosis of PD (e.g., CSF data), were defined as (b) “clinical application” studies.

Model Evaluation

In the present study, accuracy was used to compare performance of machine learning models. For each data type, we summarized the type of machine learning models that led to the per-study highest accuracy. However, in some studies, only one machine learning model was tested. Therefore, we define “model associated with the per-study highest accuracy” as (a) the only model implemented and used in a study or (b) the model that achieved the highest accuracy or that was highlighted in studies that used multiple models. Results are expressed as mean (SD).

For studies reporting both training and testing/validation accuracy, testing or validation accuracy was considered. For studies that reported both validation and test accuracy, test accuracy was considered. For studies with more than one dataset or classification problem (e.g., HC vs. PD and HC vs. idiopathic hyposmia vs. PD), accuracy was averaged across datasets or classification problems. For studies that reported classification accuracy for each group of subjects individually, accuracy was averaged across groups. For studies reporting a range of accuracies or accuracies given by different cross validation methods or feature combinations, the highest accuracies were considered. In studies that compared HC with diseases other than PD or PD with diseases other than Parkinsonism, diagnosis of diseases other than PD or Parkinsonism (e.g., amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) was not considered. Accuracy of severity assessment was not considered.

Results

Literature Review

Based on the search criteria, we retrieved 427 (PubMed) and 215 (IEEEXplore) search results, leading to a total of 642 publications. After removing duplicates, we screened 593 publications for titles and abstracts, following which we excluded 313 based on the exclusion criteria and examined 280 full text articles. Overall, we included 209 research articles for data extraction (Figure 1 and see Supplementary Materials for a full list of included studies). All articles were published from the year 2009 onwards, and an increase in the number of papers published per year was observed (Supplementary Figure 1).

Figure 1

Data Source and Sample Size

In 93 out of 209 studies (43.1%), original data were collected from human participants. In 108 studies (51.7%), data used were from public repositories and databases, including University of California at Irvine (UCI) Machine Learning Repository (Dua and Graff, 2018) (n = 44), Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative (Marek et al., 2011) (PPMI; n = 33), PhysioNet (Goldberger et al., 2000) (n = 15), HandPD dataset (Pereira et al., 2015) (n = 6), mPower database (Bot et al., 2016) (n = 4), and 6 other databases (Mucha et al., 2018; Vlachostergiou et al., 2018; Bhati et al., 2019; Hsu et al., 2019; Taleb et al., 2019; Wodzinski et al., 2019; Table 2).

In 3 studies, data from public repositories were combined with data from local databases or participants (Agarwal et al., 2016; Choi et al., 2017; Taylor and Fenner, 2017). In the remaining studies, data were sourced (Wahid et al., 2015) from another study (Fernandez et al., 2013), collected at another institution (Segovia et al., 2019), obtained from the authors' institutional database (Nunes et al., 2019), collected postmortem (Lewitt et al., 2013), or commercially sourced (Váradi et al., 2019).

The 209 studies had an average sample size of 184.6 (289.3), with a smallest sample size of 10 (Kugler et al., 2013), and a largest sample size of 2,289 (Tracy et al., 2019; Figure 2A). For studies that recruited human participants (n = 93), data from an average of 118.0 (142.9) participants were collected (range: 10–920; Figure 2B). For other studies (n = 116), an average sample size of 238.1 (358.5) was reported (range: 30–2,289; Figure 2B). For a description of average accuracy reported in these studies in relation to sample size, see Figure 2C.

Figure 2

Study Objectives

In included studies, although “diagnosis of PD” was used as the search criteria, machine learning had been applied for diagnosis (PD vs. HC), differential diagnosis (idiopathic PD vs. atypical Parkinsonism) and sub-typing (differentiation of sub-types of PD) purposes. Most studies focused on diagnosis (n = 168, 80.4%) or differential diagnosis (n = 20, 9.6%). Fourteen studies performed both diagnosis and differential diagnosis (6.7%), 5 studies (2.4%) diagnosed and subtyped PD, 2 studies (1.0%) included diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and subtyping.

Among the included studies, a total of 132 studies (63.2%) implemented and tested a machine learning method, a model architecture, a diagnostic system, a feature extraction algorithm, or a device for non-invasive, low-cost data acquisition that hasn't been established for the detection and early diagnosis of PD (methodology studies). In 77 studies (36.8%), previously proposed and validated machine learning methods were tested in clinical settings for early detection of PD, identification of novel biomarkers or examination of uncommonly used data modalities for the diagnosis of PD (e.g., CSF; clinical application studies).

Comparing Studies With Different Objectives

Source of Data

In the 132 studies that proposed or tested novel machine learning methods (i.e., methodology studies), a majority used data from publicly available databases (n = 89, 67.4%). Data collected from human participants were used in 41 studies (31.1%) and the two remaining studies (1.5%) used commercially sourced data or data from both existing public databases and local participants specifically recruited for the study. Out of the 77 studies that used machine learning models in clinical settings (i.e., clinical application studies), 52 (67.5%) collected data from human participants, 22 (28.6%) used data from public databases. Two (2.6%) studies obtained data from a database and a local cohort, and 1 (1.3%) study collected data postmortem.

Data Modality

In methodology studies, the most commonly used data modalities were voice recordings (n = 51, 38.6%), movement (n = 35, 26.5%), and MRI data (n = 15, 11.4%). For studies on clinical applications, MRI data (n = 21, 27.3%), movement (n = 16, 20.8%), and SPECT imaging data (n = 12, 15.6%) were of high relevance. All studies using CSF features (n = 5) focused on validation of existing machine learning models in a clinical setting (Figure 3A).

Figure 3

Number of Subjects

The average sample size was 137.1 for the 132 methodology studies (Figure 3B). For 41 out of the 132 studies that used data from recruited human participants, the average sample size was 81.7 (Figure 3C). In the 77 studies on clinical applications, the average sample size was 266.2 (Figure 3B). For 52 out of the 77 clinical studies that collected data from recruited participants, the average sample size was 145.9 (Figure 3C).

Machine Learning Methods Applied to the Diagnosis of PD

We divided 448 machine learning models from the 209 studies into 8 categories: (1) support vector machine (SVM) and variants (n = 132 from 130 studies), (2) neural networks (n = 76 from 62 studies), (3) ensemble learning (n = 82 from 57 studies), (4) nearest neighbor and variants (n = 33 from 33 studies), (5) regression (n = 31 from 31 studies), (6) decision tree (n = 28 from 27 studies), (7) naïve Bayes (n = 26, from 26 studies), and (8) discriminant analysis (n = 12 from 12 studies). A small percentage of models used did not fall into any of the categories (n = 28, used in 24 studies).

On average, 2.14 machine learning models per study were applied to the diagnosis of PD. One study may have used more than one category of models. For a full description of data types used to train each type of machine learning models and the associated outcomes, see Supplementary Materials and Supplementary Figure 2.

Performance Metrics

Various metrics have been used to assess the performance of machine learning models (Table 3). The most common metric was accuracy (n = 174, 83.3%), which was used individually (n = 55) or in combination with other metrics (n = 119) in model evaluation. Among the 174 studies that used accuracy, some have combined accuracy with sensitivity (i.e., recall) and specificity (n = 42), or with sensitivity, specificity and AUC (n = 16), or with recall (i.e., sensitivity), precision and F1 score (n = 7) for a more systematic understanding of model performance. A total of 35 studies (16.7%) used metrics other than accuracy. In these studies, the most used performance metrics were AUC (n = 19), sensitivity (n = 17), and specificity (n = 14), and the three were often applied together (n = 9) with or without other metrics.

Data Types and Associated Outcomes

Out of 209 studies, 122 (58.4%) applied machine learning methods to movement-related data, i.e., voice recordings (n = 55, 26.3%), movement data (n = 51, 24.4%), or handwritten patterns (n = 16, 7.7%). Imaging modalities analyzed including MRI (n = 36, 17.2%), SPECT (n = 14, 6.7%), and positron emission tomography (PET; n = 4, 1.9%). Five studies analyzed CSF samples (2.4%). In 18 studies (8.6%), a combination of different types of data was used.

Ten studies (4.8%) used data that do not belong to any categories mentioned above, such as single nucleotide polymorphisms (Cibulka et al., 2019) (SNPs), electromyography (EMG) (Kugler et al., 2013), OCT (Nunes et al., 2019), cardiac scintigraphy (Nuvoli et al., 2019), Patient Questionnaire of Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) (Prashanth and Dutta Roy, 2018), whole-blood gene expression profiles (Shamir et al., 2017), transcranial sonography (Shi et al., 2018) (TCS), eye movements (Tseng et al., 2013), electroencephalography (EEG) (Vanegas et al., 2018), and serum samples (Váradi et al., 2019).

Given that studies used different data modalities and sources, and sometimes different samples of the same database, a summary of model performance, instead of direct comparison across studies, is provided.

Voice Recordings (n = 55)

The 49 studies that used accuracy to evaluate machine learning models achieved an average accuracy of 90.9 (8.6) % (Figure 4A), ranging from 70.0% (Kraipeerapun and Amornsamankul, 2015; Ali et al., 2019a) to 100.0% (Hariharan et al., 2014; Abiyev and Abizade, 2016; Ali et al., 2019c; Dastjerd et al., 2019). In 3 studies, the highest accuracy was achieved by two types of machine learning models individually, namely regression or SVM (Ali et al., 2019a), neural network or SVM (Hariharan et al., 2014), and ensemble learning or SVM (Mandal and Sairam, 2013). The per-study highest accuracy was achieved with SVM in 23 studies (39.7%), with neural network in 16 studies (27.6%), with ensemble learning in 7 studies (12.1%), with nearest neighbor in 3 studies (5.2%), and with regression in 2 studies (3.4%). Models that do not belong to any given categories led to the per-study highest accuracy in 7 studies (12.1%; Figure 4B).

Figure 4

Voice recordings from the UCI machine learning repository were used in 42 studies (Table 4). Among the 42 studies, 39 used accuracy to evaluate classification performance and the average accuracy was 92.0 (9.0) %. The lowest accuracy was 70.0% and the highest accuracy was 100.0%. Eight out of 9 studies that collected voice recordings from human participants used accuracy as the performance metric, and the average, lowest and highest accuracies were 87.7 (6.8) %, 77.5%, and 98.6%, respectively. The 4 remaining studies used data from the Neurovoz corpus (n = 1), mPower database (n = 1), PC-GITA database (n = 1), or data from both the UCI machine learning repository and human participants (n = 1). Two out of these 4 studies used accuracy to evaluate model performance and reported an accuracy of 81.6 and 91.7%.

Movement Data (n = 51)

The 43 out of 51 studies using accuracy to assess model performance achieved an average accuracy of 89.1 (8.3) %, ranging from 62.1% (Prince and de Vos, 2018) to 100.0% (Surangsrirat et al., 2016; Joshi et al., 2017; Pham, 2018; Pham and Yan, 2018; Figure 4A). One study reported three machine learning methods (SVM, nearest neighbor and decision tree) achieving the highest accuracy individually (Félix et al., 2019). Out of the 51 studies, the per-study highest accuracy was achieved with SVM in 22 studies (41.5%), with ensemble learning in 13 studies (24.5%), with neural network in 9 studies (17.0%), with nearest neighbor in 4 studies (7.5%), with discriminant analysis in 1 study (1.9%), with naïve Bayes in 1 study (1.9%), and with decision tree in 1 study (1.9%). Models that do not belong to any given categories were associated with the highest per-study accuracy in two studies (3.8%; Figure 4B).

Among the 33 studies that collected movement data from recruited participants, 25 used accuracy in model evaluation, leading to an average accuracy of 87.0 (7.3) % (Table 5). The lowest and highest accuracies were 64.1% (Martínez et al., 2018) and 100.0% (Surangsrirat et al., 2016), respectively. Fifteen studies used data from the PhysioNet database (Table 5) and had an average accuracy of 94.4 (4.6) %, a lowest accuracy of 86.4% and a highest accuracy of 100%. Three studies used data from the mPower database (n = 2) or data sourced from another study (n = 1), and the average accuracy of these studies was 80.6 (16.2) %.

MRI (n = 36)

Average accuracy of the 32 studies that used accuracy to evaluate the performance of machine learning models was 87.5 (8.0) %. In these studies, the lowest accuracy was 70.5% (Liu L. et al., 2016) and the highest accuracy was 100.0% (Cigdem et al., 2019; Figure 4A). Out of the 36 studies, the per-study highest accuracy was obtained with SVM in 21 studies (58.3%), with neural network in 8 studies (22.2%), with discriminant analysis in 3 studies (8.3%), with regression in 2 studies (5.6%), and with ensemble learning in 1 study (2.8%). One study (2.8%) obtained the highest per-study accuracy using models that do not belong to any of the given categories (Figure 4B). In 8 of 36 studies, neural networks were directly applied to MRI data, while the remaining studies used machine learning models to learn from extracted features, e.g., cortical thickness and volume of brain regions, to diagnose PD.

Out of 17 studies that used MRI data from the PPMI database, 16 used accuracy to evaluate model performance and the average accuracy was 87.9 (8.0) %. The lowest and highest accuracies were 70.5 and 99.9%, respectively (Table 6). In 16 out of 19 studies that acquired MRI data from human participants, accuracy was used to evaluate classification performance and an average accuracy was 87.0 (8.1) % was achieved. The lowest reported accuracy was 76.2% and the highest reported accuracy was 100% (Table 6).

Handwriting Patterns (n = 16)

Fifteen out of 16 studies used accuracy in model evaluation and the average accuracy was 87.0 (6.3) % (Table 7). Among these studies, the lowest accuracy was 76.44% (Ali et al., 2019b) and the highest accuracy was 99.3% (Pereira et al., 2018; Figure 4A). The highest accuracy per-study was obtained with neural network in 6 studies (37.5%), with SVM in 5 studies (31.3%), with ensemble learning in 4 studies (25.0%), and with naïve Bayes in 1 study (6.3%; Figure 4B).

SPECT (n = 14)

Average accuracy of 12 out of 14 studies that used accuracy to measure the performance of machine learning models was 94.4 (4.2) % (Table 7). The lowest reported accuracy was 83.2% (Hsu et al., 2019) and 97.9% (Oliveira F. et al., 2018; Figure 4A). SVM led to the highest per-study accuracy in 10 out of 14 studies (71.4%). The highest per-study accuracy was obtained with neural networks in 3 studies (21.4%) and with regression in 1 study (7.1%; Figure 4B).

PET (n = 4)

All 4 studies used sensitivity and specificity (Table 7) in model evaluation while 3 used accuracy. Average accuracy of the 3 studies was 85.6 (6.6) %, with a lowest accuracy of 78.16% (Segovia et al., 2015) and a highest accuracy of 90.72% (Wu et al., 2019; Figure 4A). Half of the 4 studies (50.0%) obtained the highest per-study accuracy with SVM (Segovia et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2019) and the other half (50.0%) with neural networks (Figure 4B).

CSF (n = 5)

All 5 studies used AUC, instead of accuracy, to evaluate machine learning models (Table 7). The average AUC was 0.8 (0.1), the lowest AUC was 0.6825 (Maass et al., 2020) and the highest AUC was 0.839 (Maass et al., 2018), respectively. Two studies obtained the highest per-study AUC with ensemble learning, 2 studies with SVM and 1 study with regression (Figure 4B).

Other Types of Data (n = 10)

Only 5 studies used accuracy to measure the performance of machine learning models (Table 7). An average accuracy of 91.9 (6.4) % was obtained, with a lowest accuracy of 84.85% (Shi et al., 2018) and a highest accuracy of 100% (Nuvoli et al., 2019; Figure 4A). Out of the 10 studies, 5 (50%) used SVM to achieve the per-study highest accuracy, 3 (30%) used ensemble learning, 1 (10%) used decision trees and 1 (10%) used machine learning models that do not belong to any given categories (Figure 4B).

Combination of More Than One Data Type (n = 18)

Out of the 18 studies that used more than one type of data, 15 used accuracy in model evaluation (Table 7). An average accuracy of 92.6 (6.1) % was obtained, and the lowest and highest accuracy among the 15 studies was 82.0% (Prince et al., 2019) and 100.0% (Cherubini et al., 2014b), respectively (Figure 4A). The per-study highest accuracy was achieved with ensemble learning in 6 studies (33.3%), with neural network in 5 studies (27.8%), with SVM in 4 studies (22.2%), with regression in 1 (5.6%) study and with nearest neighbor (5.6%) in 1 study. One study (5.6%) used machine learning models that do not belong to any given categories to obtain the highest per-study accuracy (Figure 4B).

Discussion

Principal Findings

In this review, we present results from published studies that applied machine learning to the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of PD. Since the number of included papers was relatively large, we focused on a high-level summary rather than a detailed description of methodology and direct comparison of outcomes of individual studies. We also provide an overview of sample size, data source and data type, for a more in-depth understanding of methodological differences across studies and their outcomes. Furthermore, we assessed (a) how large the participant pool/dataset was, (b) to what extent new data (i.e., unpublished, raw data acquired from locally recruited human participants) were collected and used, (c) the feasibility of machine learning and the possibility of introducing new biomarkers in the diagnosis of PD. Overall, methodology studies that proposed and tested novel technical approaches (e.g., machine learning and deep learning models, data acquisition devices, and feature extraction algorithms) have repetitively shown that features extracted from data modalities including voice recordings and handwritten patterns could lead to high patient-level diagnostic performance, while facilitating accessible and non-invasive data acquisition. Nevertheless, only a small number of studies further validated these technical approaches in clinical settings using local human participants recruited specifically for these studies, indicating a gap between model development and their clinical applications.

A per-study diagnostic accuracy above chance levels was achieved in all studies that used accuracy in model evaluation (Figure 4A). Apart from studies using CSF data that measured model performance with AUC, classification accuracy associated with 8 other data types ranged between 85.6% (PET) and 94.4% (SPECT), with an average of 89.9 (3.0) %. Therefore, although the small number of studies of some data types may not allow for a generalizable prediction of how well these data types can help us differentiate PD from HC or atypical Parkinsonian disorders, the application of machine learning to a variety of data types led to high accuracy in the diagnosis of PD. In addition, an accuracy significantly above chance levels was achieved in all machine learning models (Supplementary Table 1), while SVM, neural networks and ensemble learning were among the most popular model choices, all yielding great applicability to a variety of data modalities. In the meantime, when compared with other models, they led to the per-study highest classification accuracy in >50% of all cases (50.7, 51.9, and 52.3%, respectively; Supplementary Table 1). Despite the high diagnostic accuracy and performance reported, in a number of studies, data splitting strategies and the use of cross validation were not specified. For data modalities such as 3D MRI scans, when 2D slices are extracted from 3D volumes, multiple slices could be generated for one subject. Having data from the same subject across training, validation and tests sets can lead to a biased data split (Wen et al., 2020), causing data leakage and overestimation of model performance, thus compromising reproducibility of published results.

As previously discussed (Belić et al., 2019), although satisfactory diagnostic outcomes could be achieved, sample size in few studies was extremely small (<15 subjects). The application of some machine learning models, especially neural networks, typically rely on a large dataset. Nevertheless, collecting data from a large pool of participants remains challenging in clinical studies, and data generated are commonly of high dimensionality and small sample size (Vabalas et al., 2019). To address this challenge, one solution is to combine data from a local cohort with public repositories including PPMI, UCI machine learning repository, PhysioNet and many others, depending on the type of data that have been collected from the local cohort. Furthermore, when a great difference in group size is observed (i.e., class imbalance problem), labeling all samples after the majority class may lead to an undesired high accuracy. In this case, evaluating machine learning models with other metrics including precision, recall and F-1 score is recommended (Jeni et al., 2013).

Even though high diagnostic accuracy of PD has been achieved in clinical settings, machine learning approaches have also reached high accuracy as shown in the present study, while models including SVM and neural networks are particularly useful in (a) diagnosis of PD using data modalities that have been overlooked in clinical decision making (e.g., voice), and (b) identification of features of high relevance from these data. For example, the use of machine learning models with feature selection techniques allows for assessing the relative importance of features of a large feature space in order to select the most differentiating ones, which is conventionally challenging using manual approaches. For the discovery of novel markers allowing for non-invasive diagnostic options with relatively high accuracy, e.g., handwritten patterns, a small number of studies have been conducted, mostly using data from published databases. Given that these databases generally included handwritten patterns from a small number of diagnosed PD patients, sometimes under 15, it would be of great importance to validate the use of handwritten patterns in early diagnosis of PD in clinical studies of a larger scale. In the meantime, diagnosing PD using more than one data modality has led to promising results. Accordingly, supplying clinicians with non-motor data and machine learning approaches may support clinical decision making in patients with ambiguous symptom presentations, and/or improve diagnosis at an earlier stage.

An issue observed in many included studies was the insufficient or inaccurate description of methods or results, and some failed to provide accurate information of the number and type of subjects used (for example, methodology studies on early diagnosis of PD missing a table summarizing the characteristics of subjects, therefore it was challenging to understand the stage of PD in recruited patients), or how machine learning models were implemented, trained and tested. Infrequently, authors skipped basic information such as number of subjects and their medical conditions and referred to another publication. Although we attempted to list model hyperparameters and cross-validation strategies in the data extraction table, many included studies did not make this information available in the main text, leading to potential difficulties in replicating the results. Apart from these, rounding errors or inconsistent reporting of results also exist. Furthermore, although we treated the differentiation of PD from SWEDD as subtyping, there is ongoing controversy regarding whether it should be considered as differential diagnosis or subtyping (Lee et al., 2014; Erro et al., 2016; Chou, 2017; Kwon et al., 2018). Given these limitations, clinicians interested in adapting machine learning models or implementing diagnostic systems based on novel biomarkers are advised to interpret published results with care. Further, in this context we would like to stress the need for uniform reporting standards in studies using machine learning.

In both machine learning research and clinical settings, appropriately interpreting published results and methodologies is a necessary step toward an understanding of state-of-the-art methods. Therefore, vagueness in reporting not only compromises the interpretation of results but makes further methodological developments based on published research unnecessarily challenging. Moreover, for medical doctors interested in learning how machine learning methods could be applied in their domains, insufficient description of methods may lead to incorrect model implementation and failure of replication.

To enable efficient replication of published results, detailed descriptions of (a) model and architecture (hyperparameters, number and type of layers, layer-specific parameter settings, regularization strategies, activation functions), (b) implementation (programming language, machine learning and deep learning libraries used, model training and testing, metrics and model evaluation, validation strategy, optimization), and (c) version numbers of software/libraries used for both preprocessing and model implementation, are often desirable, as newer software versions may lead to differences in pre-processing and model implementation stages (Chepkoech et al., 2016).

Due to the use of imbalanced datasets in medical sciences, reporting model performance with a confusion matrix may give rise to a more comprehensive understanding of the model's ability to discriminate between PD and healthy controls. In the meantime, due to costs associated with acquisition of patient data, researchers often need to expand data collected from a local cohort using data sourced from publicly available databases or published studies. Nevertheless, unclear description of data acquisition and pre-processing protocols in some published studies may lead to challenges in the integration of newly acquired data and previously published data. Taken together, to facilitate early, refined diagnosis of PD and efficient application of novel machine learning approaches in a clinical setting, and to allow for improved reproducibility of studies on machine learning-based diagnosis and assessment of PD, a higher transparency in reporting data collection, pre-processing protocols, model implementation, and study outcomes is required.

Limitations

In the present study, we have excluded research articles in languages other than English and results published in the form of conference abstracts, posters, and talks. Despite the ongoing discussion of advantages and importance of including conference abstracts in systematic reviews and reviews (Scherer and Saldanha, 2019), conference abstracts often do not report sufficient key information which is why we had to exclude them. However, this may lead to a publication and result bias. In addition, since the aim of the present review is to assess and summarize published studies on the detection and early diagnosis of PD, we noticed that few large-scale, multi-centric studies on subtyping or/and severity assessment of PD were therefore excluded. Given the current challenges in subtyping, severity assessment and prognosis of PD, a further step toward a more systematic understanding of the application of machine learning to neurodegenerative diseases would be to review these studies.

Moreover, due to the high inter-study variance in the data source and presentation of results, it was challenging to directly compare outcomes associated with each type of model across studies, as some studies failed to indicate whether model performance was evaluated using a test set, and/or results given by models that did not yield the best per-study performance. Results of published studies were discussed and summarized based on data and machine learning models used, and for data modalities such as PET (n = 4) or CSF (n = 5), the number of studies were too small despite the high total number of studies included. Therefore, it was improbable to assess the general performance of machine learning techniques when PET or CSF data are used.

Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first review which included results from all studies that applied machine learning methods to the diagnosis of PD. Here, we presented included studies in a high-level summary, providing access to information including (a) machine learning methods that have been used in the diagnosis of PD and associated outcomes, (b) types of clinical, behavioral and biometric data that could be used for rendering more accurate diagnoses, (c) potential biomarkers for assisting clinical decision making, and (d) other highly relevant information, including databases that could be used to enlarge and enrich smaller datasets. In summary, realization of machine learning-assisted diagnosis of PD yields high potential for a more systematic clinical decision-making system, while adaptation of novel biomarkers may give rise to easier access to PD diagnosis at an earlier stage. Machine learning approaches therefore have the potential to provide clinicians with additional tools to screen, detect or diagnose PD.

References

• 1

  AbiyevR. H.AbizadeS. (2016). Diagnosing Parkinson's diseases using fuzzy neural system. Comput. Mathe. Methods Med.2016:1267919. 10.1155/2016/1267919

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AbosA.BaggioH. C.SeguraB.CampabadalA.UribeC.GiraldoD. M.et al. (2019). Differentiation of multiple system atrophy from Parkinson's disease by structural connectivity derived from probabilistic tractography. Sci. Rep.9:16488. 10.1038/s41598-019-52829-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AbujridaH.AguE.PahlavanK. (2017). Smartphone-based gait assessment to infer Parkinson's disease severity using crowdsourced data, in 2017 IEEE Healthcare Innovations and Point of Care Technologies (HI-POCT) (Bethesda, MD), 208–211. 10.1109/HIC.2017.8227621

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AdamsW. R. (2017). High-accuracy detection of early Parkinson's Disease using multiple characteristics of finger movement while typing. PLoS ONE12:e0188226. 10.1371/journal.pone.0188226

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  AdeliE.ShiF.AnL.WeeC.-Y.WuG.WangT.et al. (2016). Joint feature-sample selection and robust diagnosis of Parkinson's disease from MRI data. NeuroImage141, 206–219. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.05.054

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  AdeliE.ThungK.-H.AnL.WuG.ShiF.WangT.et al. (2019). Semi-supervised discriminative classification robust to sample-outliers and feature-noises. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.41, 515–522. 10.1109/TPAMI.2018.2794470

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  AgarwalA.ChandrayanS.SahuS. S. (2016). Prediction of Parkinson's disease using speech signal with Extreme Learning Machine, in 2016 International Conference on Electrical, Electronics, and Optimization Techniques (ICEEOT) (Chennai), 3776–3779. 10.1109/ICEEOT.2016.7755419

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  AhlrichsC.LawoM. (2013). Parkinson's disease motor symptoms in machine learning: a review. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.3825. 10.5121/hiij.2013.2401

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  AhmadiS. A.VivarG.FreiJ.NowoshilowS.BardinsS.BrandtT.et al. (2019). Towards computerized diagnosis of neurological stance disorders: data mining and machine learning of posturography and sway. J. Neurol.266(Suppl 1), 108–117. 10.1007/s00415-019-09458-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  AichS.KimH.youngaK.HuiK. L.Al-AbsiA. A.SainM. (2019). A supervised machine learning approach using different feature selection techniques on voice datasets for prediction of Parkinson's disease, in 2019 21st International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology (ICACT) (PyeongChang), 1116–1121. 10.23919/ICACT.2019.8701961

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  AlamM. N.GargA.MuniaT. T. K.Fazel-RezaiR.TavakolianK. (2017). Vertical ground reaction force marker for Parkinson's disease. PLoS ONE12:e0175951. 10.1371/journal.pone.0175951

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  AlaskarH.HussainA. (2018). Prediction of Parkinson disease using gait signals, in 2018 11th International Conference on Developments in eSystems Engineering (DeSE) (Cambridge), 23–26. 10.1109/DeSE.2018.00011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  Al-FatlawiA. H.JabardiM. H.LingS. H. (2016). Efficient diagnosis system for Parkinson's disease using deep belief network, in 2016 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC) (Vancouver, BC), 1324–1330. 10.1109/CEC.2016.7743941

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  AlharthiA. S.OzanyanK. B. (2019). Deep learning for ground reaction force data analysis: application to wide-area floor sensing, in 2019 IEEE 28th International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (ISIE) (Vancouver, BC)„ 1401–1406. 10.1109/ISIE.2019.8781511

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  AliL.KhanS. U.ArshadM.AliS.AnwarM. (2019a). A multi-model framework for evaluating type of speech samples having complementary information about Parkinson's disease, in 2019 International Conference on Electrical, Communication, and Computer Engineering (ICECCE) (Swat), 1–5. 10.1109/ICECCE47252.2019.8940696

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  AliL.ZhuC.GolilarzN. A.JaveedA.ZhouM.LiuY. (2019b). Reliable Parkinson's disease detection by analyzing handwritten drawings: construction of an unbiased cascaded learning system based on feature selection and adaptive boosting model. IEEE Access7, 116480–116489. 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2932037

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  AliL.ZhuC.ZhangZ.LiuY. (2019c). Automated detection of Parkinson's disease based on multiple types of sustained phonations using linear discriminant analysis and genetically optimized neural network. IEEE J. Transl. Eng. Health Med.7, 1–10. 10.1109/JTEHM.2019.2940900

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  AlqahtaniE. J.AlshamraniF. H.SyedH. F.OlatunjiS. O. (2018). Classification of Parkinson's disease using NNge classification algorithm, in 2018 21st Saudi Computer Society National Computer Conference (NCC) (Riyadh), 1–7. 10.1109/NCG.2018.8592989

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  AmorosoN.La RoccaM.MonacoA.BellottiR.TangaroS. (2018). Complex networks reveal early MRI markers of Parkinson's disease. Med. Image Anal.48, 12–24. 10.1016/j.media.2018.05.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  AnandA.HaqueM. A.AlexJ. S. R.VenkatesanN. (2018). Evaluation of machine learning and deep learning algorithms combined with dimentionality reduction techniques for classification of Parkinson's disease, in 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Signal Processing and Information Technology (ISSPIT) (Louisville, KY), 342–347. 10.1109/ISSPIT.2018.8642776

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  AndreiA.Tău?anA.IonescuB. (2019). Parkinson's disease detection from gait patterns, in 2019 E-Health and Bioengineering Conference (EHB) (Iasi), 1–4. 10.1109/EHB47216.2019.8969942

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  BabyM. S.SajiA. J.KumarC. S. (2017). Parkinsons disease classification using wavelet transform based feature extraction of gait data, in 2017 International Conference on Circuit, Power and Computing Technologies (ICCPCT) (Kollam), 1–6. 10.1109/ICCPCT.2017.8074230

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  BaggioH. C.AbosA.SeguraB.CampabadalA.UribeC.GiraldoD. M.et al. (2019). Cerebellar resting-state functional connectivity in Parkinson's disease and multiple system atrophy: characterization of abnormalities and potential for differential diagnosis at the single-patient level. NeuroImage. Clin.22:101720. 10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101720

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  BakarZ. A.IspawiD. I.IbrahimN. F.TahirN. M. (2012). Classification of Parkinson's disease based on Multilayer Perceptrons (MLPs) neural network and ANOVA as a feature extraction, in 2012 IEEE 8th International Colloquium on Signal Processing and its Applications) (Malacca), 63–67. 10.1109/CSPA.2012.6194692

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  BanerjeeM.ChakrabortyR.ArcherD.VaillancourtD.VemuriB. C. (2019). DMR-CNN: a CNN tailored For DMR scans with applications to PD classification, in 2019 IEEE 16th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 2019) (Venice), 388–391. 10.1109/ISBI.2019.8759558

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  BelićM.BobićV.BadŽaM.ŠolajaN.Ã?urić-JovičićM.KostićV. S. (2019). Artificial intelligence for assisting diagnostics and assessment of Parkinson's disease–a review. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg.184:105442. 10.1016/j.clineuro.2019.105442

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  BenbaA.JilbabA.HammouchA. (2016a). Discriminating between patients with Parkinson's and neurological diseases using cepstral analysis. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehab. Eng.24, 1100–1108. 10.1109/TNSRE.2016.2533582

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  BenbaA.JilbabA.HammouchA.SandabadS. (2016b). Using RASTA-PLP for discriminating between different neurological diseases, in 2016 International Conference on Electrical and Information Technologies (ICEIT) (Tangiers), 406–409. 10.1109/EITech.2016.7519630

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  Bernad-ElazariH.HermanT.MirelmanA.GazitE.GiladiN.HausdorffJ. M. (2016). Objective characterization of daily living transitions in patients with Parkinson's disease using a single body-fixed sensor. J. Neurol.263, 1544–1551. 10.1007/s00415-016-8164-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  BhatiS.VelazquezL. M.VillalbaJ.DehakN. (2019). LSTM siamese network for Parkinson's disease detection from speech, in 2019 IEEE Global Conference on Signal and Information Processing (GlobalSIP) (Ottawa, ON), 1–5. 10.1109/GlobalSIP45357.2019.8969430

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  BotB. M.SuverC.NetoE. C.KellenM.KleinA.BareC.et al. (2016). The mPower study, Parkinson disease mobile data collected using ResearchKit. Sci. Data3, 1–9. 10.1038/sdata.2016.11

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  BraakH.Del TrediciK.RübU.De VosR. A.SteurE. N. J.BraakE. (2003). Staging of brain pathology related to sporadic Parkinson's disease. Neurobiol. Aging24, 197–211. 10.1016/S0197-4580(02)00065-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  BuongiornoD.BortoneI.CascaranoG. D.TrottaG. F.BrunettiA.BevilacquaV. (2019). A low-cost vision system based on the analysis of motor features for recognition and severity rating of Parkinson's Disease. BMC Med. Inform. Decision Making19(Suppl 9):243. 10.1186/s12911-019-0987-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  ButtA. H.RoviniE.DolciottiC.BongioanniP.De PetrisG.CavalloF. (2017). Leap motion evaluation for assessment of upper limb motor skills in Parkinson's disease. IEEE Int. Conf. Rehabil. Robot.2017, 116–121. 10.1109/ICORR.2017.8009232

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  ButtA. H.RoviniE.DolciottiC.De PetrisG.BongioanniP.CarbonciniM. C.et al. (2018). Objective and automatic classification of Parkinson disease with Leap Motion controller. Biomed. Eng. Online17:168. 10.1186/s12938-018-0600-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  CaiZ.GuJ.WenC.ZhaoD.HuangC.HuangH.et al. (2018). An intelligent Parkinson's disease diagnostic system based on a chaotic bacterial foraging optimization enhanced fuzzy KNN approach. Comp. Math. Methods Med.2018:2396952. 10.1155/2018/2396952

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  CaramiaC.TorricelliD.SchmidM.Munoz-GonzalezA.Gonzalez-VargasJ.GrandasF.et al. (2018). IMU-based classification of Parkinson's disease from gait: a sensitivity analysis on sensor location and feature selection. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inf.22, 1765–1774. 10.1109/JBHI.2018.2865218

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  Castillo-BarnesD.RamírezJ.SegoviaF.Martínez-MurciaF. J.Salas-GonzalezD.GórrizJ. M. (2018). Robust ensemble classification methodology for I123-Ioflupane SPECT images and multiple heterogeneous biomarkers in the diagnosis of Parkinson's disease. Front. Neuroinf.12:53. 10.3389/fninf.2018.00053

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  CavalloF.MoschettiA.EspositoD.MaremmaniC.RoviniE. (2019). Upper limb motor pre-clinical assessment in Parkinson's disease using machine learning. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord.63, 111–116. 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2019.02.028

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  CelikE.OmurcaS. I. (2019). Improving Parkinson's disease diagnosis with machine learning methods, in 2019 Scientific Meeting on Electrical-Electronics & Biomedical Engineering and Computer Science (EBBT) (Istanbul), 1–4. 10.1109/EBBT.2019.8742057

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  ChakrabortyS.AichS.KimH.-C. (2020). 3D textural, morphological and statistical analysis of voxel of interests in 3T MRI scans for the detection of Parkinson's disease using artificial neural networks. Healthcare8:E34. 10.3390/healthcare8010034

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  ChallaK. N. R.PagoluV. S.PandaG.MajhiB. (2016). An improved approach for prediction of Parkinson's disease using machine learning techniques, in 2016 International Conference on Signal Processing, Communication, Power and Embedded System (SCOPES) (Paralakhemundi), 1446–1451. 10.1109/SCOPES.2016.7955679

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  ChenY.StorrsJ.TanL.MazlackL. J.LeeJ.-H.LuL. J. (2014). Detecting brain structural changes as biomarker from magnetic resonance images using a local feature based SVM approach. J. Neurosci. Methods221, 22–31. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2013.09.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  ChenY.YangW.LongJ.ZhangY.FengJ.LiY.et al. (2015). Discriminative analysis of Parkinson's disease based on whole-brain functional connectivity. PLoS ONE10:e0124153. 10.1371/journal.pone.0124153

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  ChepkoechJ. L.WalhovdK. B.GrydelandH.FjellA. M.Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (2016). Effects of change in FreeSurfer version on classification accuracy of patients with Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment. Hum. Brain Mapp.37, 1831–1841. 10.1002/hbm.23139

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  CherubiniA.MorelliM.NisticóR.SalsoneM.ArabiaG.VastaR.et al. (2014a). Magnetic resonance support vector machine discriminates between Parkinson disease and progressive supranuclear palsy. Move. Disord.29, 266–269. 10.1002/mds.25737

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  CherubiniA.NisticóR.NovellinoF.SalsoneM.NigroS.DonzusoG.et al. (2014b). Magnetic resonance support vector machine discriminates essential tremor with rest tremor from tremor-dominant Parkinson disease. Move. Disord.29, 1216–1219. 10.1002/mds.25869

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  ChoiH.HaS.ImH. J.PaekS. H.LeeD. S. (2017). Refining diagnosis of Parkinson's disease with deep learning-based interpretation of dopamine transporter imaging. NeuroImage Clin.16, 586–594. 10.1016/j.nicl.2017.09.010

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  ChouK. L. (2017). Diagnosis and Differential Diagnosis of Parkinson Disease. Waltham, MA: UpToDate.

  • Google Scholar

• 50

  CibulkaM.BrodnanovaM.GrendarM.GrofikM.KurcaE.PilchovaI.et al. (2019). SNPs rs11240569, rs708727, and rs823156 in SLC41A1 do not discriminate between slovak patients with idiopathic parkinson's disease and healthy controls: statistics and machine-learning evidence. Int. J. Mol. Sci.20:4688. 10.3390/ijms20194688

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  CigdemO.DemirelH.UnayD. (2019). The performance of local-learning based clustering feature selection method on the diagnosis of Parkinson's disease using structural MRI, in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (SMC) (Bari), 1286–1291. 10.1109/SMC.2019.8914611

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  ÇimenS.BolatB. (2016). Diagnosis of Parkinson's disease by using ANN, in 2016 International Conference on Global Trends in Signal Processing, Information Computing and Communication (ICGTSPICC) (Jalgaon), 119–121. 10.1109/ICGTSPICC.2016.7955281

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  Contreras-VidalJ.StelmachG. E. (1995). Effects of Parkinsonism on motor control. Life Sci.58, 165–176. 10.1016/0024-3205(95)02237-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  CookD. J.Schmitter-EdgecombeM.DawadiP. (2015). Analyzing activity behavior and movement in a naturalistic environment using smart home techniques. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inf.19, 1882–1892. 10.1109/JBHI.2015.2461659

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  CuzzolinF.SapienzaM.EsserP.SahaS.FranssenM. M.CollettJ.et al. (2017). Metric learning for Parkinsonian identification from IMU gait measurements. Gait Posture54, 127–132. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.02.012

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  DashS.ThulasiramR.ThulasiramanP. (2017). An enhanced chaos-based firefly model for Parkinson's disease diagnosis and classification, in 2017 International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT) (Bhubaneswar), 159–164. 10.1109/ICIT.2017.43

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  DastjerdN. K.SertO. C.OzyerT.AlhajjR. (2019). Fuzzy classification methods based diagnosis of Parkinson's disease from speech test cases. Curr. Aging Sci.12, 100–120. 10.2174/1874609812666190625140311

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  de SouzaJ. W. M.AlvesS. S. A.RebouçasE. d,.SAlmeidaJ. S.Rebouças FilhoP.P. (2018). A new approach to diagnose Parkinson's disease using a structural cooccurrence matrix for a similarity analysis. Comput. Intell. Neurosci.2018:7613282. 10.1155/2018/7613282

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  DhamiD. S.SoniA.PageD.NatarajanS. (2017). Identifying Parkinson's patients: a functional gradient boosting approach. Artif. Intell. Med. Conf. Artif. Intell. Med.10259, 332–337. 10.1007/978-3-319-59758-4_39

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  DineshA.HeJ. (2017). Using machine learning to diagnose Parkinson's disease from voice recordings, in 2017 IEEE MIT Undergraduate Research Technology Conference (URTC) (Cambridge, MA), 1–4. 10.1109/URTC.2017.8284216

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  DinovI. D.HeavnerB.TangM.GlusmanG.ChardK.DarcyM.et al. (2016). Predictive big data analytics: a study of parkinson's disease using large, complex, heterogeneous, incongruent, multi-source and incomplete observations. PLoS ONE11:e0157077. 10.1371/journal.pone.0157077

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  Djurić-JovičićM.BelićM.StankovićI.RadovanovićS.KostićV. S. (2017). Selection of gait parameters for differential diagnostics of patients with de novo Parkinson's disease. Neurol. Res.39, 853–861. 10.1080/01616412.2017.1348690

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  DorseyE. R.ElbazA.NicholsE.Abd-AllahF.AbdelalimA.AdsuarJ. C.et al. (2018). Global, regional, and national burden of Parkinson's disease, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol.17, 939–953. 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30295-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  Dos SantosM. C. T.SchellerD.SchulteC.MesaI. R.ColmanP.BujacS. R.et al. (2018). Evaluation of cerebrospinal fluid proteins as potential biomarkers for early stage Parkinson's disease diagnosis. PLoS ONE13:e0206536. 10.1371/journal.pone.0206536

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  DrorB.YanaiE.FridA.PelegN.GoldenthalN.SchlesingerI.et al. (2014). Automatic assessment of Parkinson's disease from natural hands movements using 3D depth sensor, in 2014 IEEE 28th Convention of Electrical & Electronics Engineers in Israel (IEEEI) (Eilat), 1–5. 10.1109/EEEI.2014.7005763

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  DrotárP.MekyskaJ.RektorováI.MasarováL.SmékalZ.Faundez-ZanuyM. (2014). Analysis of in-air movement in handwriting: a novel marker for Parkinson's disease. Comp. Methods Progr. Biomed.117, 405–411. 10.1016/j.cmpb.2014.08.007

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  DrotárP.MekyskaJ.RektorováI.MasarováL.SmékalZ.Faundez-ZanuyM. (2015). Decision support framework for Parkinson's disease based on novel handwriting markers. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng.23, 508–516. 10.1109/TNSRE.2014.2359997

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  DrotárP.MekyskaJ.RektorováI.MasarováL.SmékalZ.Faundez-ZanuyM. (2016). Evaluation of handwriting kinematics and pressure for differential diagnosis of Parkinson's disease. Artif. Intell. Med.67, 39–46. 10.1016/j.artmed.2016.01.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  DuG.LewisM. M.KanekarS.SterlingN. W.HeL.KongL.et al. (2017). Combined Diffusion tensor imaging and apparent transverse relaxation rate differentiate Parkinson disease and atypical Parkinsonism. Am. J. Neuroradiol.38, 966–972. 10.3174/ajnr.A5136

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  DuaD.GraffC. (2018). UCI Machine Learning Repository. Irvine, CA: University of California, School of Information and Computer Science.

  • Google Scholar

• 71

  Erdogdu SakarB.SerbesG.SakarC. O. (2017). Analyzing the effectiveness of vocal features in early telediagnosis of Parkinson's disease. PLoS ONE12:e0182428. 10.1371/journal.pone.0182428

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  ErroR.SchneiderS. A.StamelouM.QuinnN. P.BhatiaK. P. (2016). What do patients with scans without evidence of dopaminergic deficit (SWEDD) have? New evidence and continuing controversies. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry87, 319–323. 10.1136/jnnp-2014-310256

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  FélixJ. P.VieiraF. H. T.CardosoÁ. A.FerreiraM. V. G.FrancoR. A. P.RibeiroM. A.et al. (2019). A Parkinson's disease classification method: an approach using gait dynamics and detrended fluctuation analysis, in 2019 IEEE Canadian Conference of Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE) (Edmonton, AB), 1–4. 10.1109/CCECE.2019.8861759

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  FernandesC.FonsecaL.FerreiraF.GagoM.CostaL.SousaN.et al. (2018). Artificial neural networks classification of patients with Parkinsonism based on gait, in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) (Madrid), 2024–2030. 10.1109/BIBM.2018.8621466

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  FernandezK. M.RoemmichR. T.StegemöllerE. L.AmanoS.ThompsonA.OkunM. S.et al. (2013). Gait initiation impairments in both Essential Tremor and Parkinson's disease. Gait Posture38, 956–961. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.05.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  FockeN. K.HelmsG.ScheeweS.PantelP. M.BachmannC. G.DechentP.et al. (2011). Individual voxel-based subtype prediction can differentiate progressive supranuclear palsy from idiopathic Parkinson syndrome and healthy controls. Human Brain Mapp.32, 1905–1915. 10.1002/hbm.21161

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  FridA.SafraE. J.HazanH.LokeyL. L.HiluD.ManevitzL.et al. (2014). Computational diagnosis of Parkinson's disease directly from natural speech using machine learning techniques, in 2014 IEEE International Conference on Software Science, Technology and Engineering (Ramat Gan), 50–53. 10.1109/SWSTE.2014.17

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  GhassemiN. H.MarxreiterF.PasluostaC. F.KuglerP.SchlachetzkiJ.SchrammA.et al. (2016). Combined accelerometer and EMG analysis to differentiate essential tremor from Parkinson's disease. Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc.2016, 672–675. 10.1109/EMBC.2016.7590791

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  GlaabE.TrezziJ.-P.GreuelA.JägerC.HodakZ.DrzezgaA.et al. (2019). Integrative analysis of blood metabolomics and PET brain neuroimaging data for Parkinson's disease. Neurobiol. Dis.124, 555–562. 10.1016/j.nbd.2019.01.003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  GoldbergerA. L.AmaralL. A.GlassL.HausdorffJ. M.IvanovP. C.MarkR. G.et al. (2000). PhysioBank, PhysioToolkit, and PhysioNet: components of a new research resource for complex physiologic signals. Circulation101, e215–e220. 10.1161/01.CIR.101.23.e215

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  GunduzH. (2019). Deep learning-based parkinson's disease classification using vocal feature sets. IEEE Access7, 115540–115551. 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2936564

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  HallerS.BadoudS.NguyenD.BarnaureI.MontandonM. L.LovbladK. O.et al. (2013). Differentiation between Parkinson disease and other forms of Parkinsonism using support vector machine analysis of susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI): initial results. Eur. Radiol.23, 12–19. 10.1007/s00330-012-2579-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  HallerS.BadoudS.NguyenD.GaribottoV.LovbladK. O.BurkhardP. R. (2012). Individual detection of patients with Parkinson disease using support vector machine analysis of diffusion tensor imaging data: initial results. Am. J. Neuroradiol.33, 2123–2128. 10.3174/ajnr.A3126

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  HaqA. U.LiJ.MemonM. H.KhanJ.DinS. U.AhadI.et al. (2018). Comparative analysis of the classification performance of machine learning classifiers and deep neural network classifier for prediction of Parkinson disease, in 2018 15th International Computer Conference on Wavelet Active Media Technology and Information Processing (ICCWAMTIP) (Chengdu), 101–106.

  • Google Scholar

• 85

  HaqA. U.LiJ. P.MemonM. H.khanJ.MalikA.AhmadT.et al. (2019). Feature selection based on L1-Norm support vector machine and effective recognition system for Parkinson's disease using voice recordings. IEEE Access7, 37718–37734. 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2906350

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  HariharanM.PolatK.SindhuR. (2014). A new hybrid intelligent system for accurate detection of Parkinson's disease. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed.113, 904–913. 10.1016/j.cmpb.2014.01.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  HirschauerT. J.AdeliH.BufordJ. A. (2015). Computer-aided diagnosis of Parkinson's disease using enhanced probabilistic neural network. J. Med. Syst.39:179. 10.1007/s10916-015-0353-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  HsuS.-Y.LinH.-C.ChenT.-B.DuW.-C.HsuY.-H.WuY.-C.et al. (2019). Feasible classified models for Parkinson disease from (99m)Tc-TRODAT-1 SPECT imaging. Sensors19:1740. 10.3390/s19071740

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  Huertas-FernándezI.García-GómezF. J.García-SolísD.Benítez-RiveroS.Marín-OyagaV. A.JesúsS.et al. (2015). Machine learning models for the differential diagnosis of vascular parkinsonism and Parkinson's disease using [(123)I]FP-CIT SPECT. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imag.42, 112–119. 10.1007/s00259-014-2882-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  HuppertzH.-J.MöllerL.SüdmeyerM.HilkerR.HattingenE.EggerK.et al. (2016). Differentiation of neurodegenerative parkinsonian syndromes by volumetric magnetic resonance imaging analysis and support vector machine classification. Mov. Disord.31, 1506–1517. 10.1002/mds.26715

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  IK.UlukayaS.ErdemO. (2019). Classification of Parkinson's disease using dynamic time warping, in 2019 27th Telecommunications Forum (TELFOR) (Belgrade), 1–4

  • Google Scholar

• 92

  IllanI. A.GorrzJ. M.RamirezJ.SegoviaF.Jimenez-HoyuelaJ. M.Ortega LozanoS. J. (2012). Automatic assistance to Parkinson's disease diagnosis in DaTSCAN SPECT imaging. Med. Phys.39, 5971–5980. 10.1118/1.4742055

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  IslamM. S.ParvezI.HaiD.GoswamiP. (2014). Performance comparison of heterogeneous classifiers for detection of Parkinson's disease using voice disorder (dysphonia), in 2014 International Conference on Informatics, Electronics & Vision (ICIEV) (Dhaka), 1–7. 10.1109/ICIEV.2014.6850849

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  JankovicJ. (2008). Parkinson's disease: clinical features and diagnosis. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry79, 368–376. 10.1136/jnnp.2007.131045

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  JavedF.ThomasI.MemediM. (2018). A comparison of feature selection methods when using motion sensors data: a case study in Parkinson's disease. Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc.2018, 5426–5429. 10.1109/EMBC.2018.8513683

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  JeniL. A.CohnJ. F.De La TorreF. (2013). Facing imbalanced data–recommendations for the use of performance metrics, in 2013 Humaine Association Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (Geneva: IEEE), 245–251. 10.1109/ACII.2013.47

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  JiW.LiY. (2012). Energy-based feature ranking for assessing the dysphonia measurements in Parkinson detection. IET Signal Proc.6, 300–305. 10.1049/iet-spr.2011.0186

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  JohnsonS. J.DienerM. D.KaltenboeckA.BirnbaumH. G.SiderowfA. D. (2013). An economic model of P arkinson's disease: implications for slowing progression in the United States. Move. Disord.28, 319–326. 10.1002/mds.25328

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  JoshiD.KhajuriaA.JoshiP. (2017). An automatic non-invasive method for Parkinson's disease classification. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed.145, 135–145. 10.1016/j.cmpb.2017.04.007

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  JuniorS. B.CostaV. G. T.ChenS.GuidoR. C. (2018). U-healthcare system for pre-diagnosis of Parkinson's disease from voice signal, in 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia (ISM) (Taichung), 271–274.

  • Google Scholar

• 101

  KamagataK.ZaleskyA.HatanoT.Di BiaseM. A.El SamadO.SaikiS.et al. (2017). Connectome analysis with diffusion MRI in idiopathic Parkinson's disease: evaluation using multi-shell, multi-tissue, constrained spherical deconvolution. NeuroImage. Clin.17, 518–529. 10.1016/j.nicl.2017.11.007

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  Karapinar SenturkZ. (2020). Early diagnosis of Parkinson's disease using machine learning algorithms. Med. Hypoth.138:109603. 10.1016/j.mehy.2020.109603

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  KazeminejadA.GolbabaeiS.Soltanian-ZadehH. (2017). Graph theoretical metrics and machine learning for diagnosis of Parkinson's disease using rs-fMRI, in 2017 Artificial Intelligence and Signal Processing Conference (AISP) (Shiraz), 134–139. 10.1109/AISP.2017.8324124

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  KhanM. M.MendesA.ChalupS. K. (2018). Evolutionary Wavelet Neural Network ensembles for breast cancer and Parkinson's disease prediction. PLoS ONE13:e0192192. 10.1371/journal.pone.0192192

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  KhataminoP.IC.ÖzyilmazL. (2018). A deep learning-CNN based system for medical diagnosis: an application on Parkinson's disease handwriting drawings, in 2018 6th International Conference on Control Engineering & Information Technology (CEIT) (Istanbul), 1–6. 10.1109/CEIT.2018.8751879

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  KhouryN.AttalF.AmiratY.OukhellouL.MohammedS. (2019). Data-driven based approach to aid Parkinson's disease diagnosis. Sensors19:242. 10.3390/s19020242

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  KiryuS.YasakaK.AkaiH.NakataY.SugomoriY.HaraS.et al. (2019). Deep learning to differentiate parkinsonian disorders separately using single midsagittal MR imaging: a proof of concept study. Eur. Radiol.29, 6891–6899. 10.1007/s00330-019-06327-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  KleinY.DjaldettiR.KellerY.BacheletI. (2017). Motor dysfunction and touch-slang in user interface data. Scientific reports7:4702. 10.1038/s41598-017-04893-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  KlomsaeA.AuephanwiriyakulS.Theera-UmponN. (2018). String grammar unsupervised possibilistic fuzzy C-medians for gait pattern classification in patients with neurodegenerative diseases. Comput. Intell. Neurosci.2018:1869565. 10.1155/2018/1869565

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  KoçerA.OktayA. B. (2016). Nintendo Wii assessment of Hoehn and Yahr score with Parkinson's disease tremor. Technol. Health Care24, 185–191. 10.3233/THC-151124

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  KostikisN.Hristu-VarsakelisD.ArnaoutoglouM.KotsavasiloglouC. (2015). A smartphone-based tool for assessing Parkinsonian hand tremor. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inf.19, 1835–1842. 10.1109/JBHI.2015.2471093

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  KowalS. L.DallT. M.ChakrabartiR.StormM. V.JainA. (2013). The current and projected economic burden of Parkinson's disease in the United States. Move. Disord.28, 311–318. 10.1002/mds.25292

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  KraipeerapunP.AmornsamankulS. (2015). Using stacked generalization and complementary neural networks to predict Parkinson's disease, in 2015 11th International Conference on Natural Computation (ICNC) (Zhangjiajie), 1290–1294. 10.1109/ICNC.2015.7378178

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  KuglerP.JaremenkoC.SchlachetzkiJ.WinklerJ.KluckenJ.EskofierB. (2013). Automatic recognition of Parkinson's disease using surface electromyography during standardized gait tests. Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc.2013, 5781–5784. 10.1109/EMBC.2013.6610865

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  KuhnerA.SchubertT.CenciariniM.WiesmeierI. K.CoenenV. A.BurgardW.et al. (2017). Correlations between motor symptoms across different motor tasks, quantified via random forest feature classification in Parkinson's disease. Front. Neurol.8:607. 10.3389/fneur.2017.00607

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  KuresanH.SamiappanD.MasundaS. (2019). Fusion of WPT and MFCC feature extraction in Parkinson's disease diagnosis. Technol. Health Care27, 363–372. 10.3233/THC-181306

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  KwonD.-Y.KwonY.KimJ.-W. (2018). Quantitative analysis of finger and forearm movements in patients with off state early stage Parkinson's disease and scans without evidence of dopaminergic deficit (SWEDD). Parkinsonism Related Disord.57, 33–38. 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2018.07.012

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  LacyS. E.SmithS. L.LonesM. A. (2018). Using echo state networks for classification: A case study in Parkinson's disease diagnosis. Artif. Intell. Med.86, 53–59. 10.1016/j.artmed.2018.02.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  LeeM. J.KimS. L.LyooC. H.LeeM. S. (2014). Kinematic analysis in patients with Parkinson's disease and SWEDD. J. Parkinsons Dis.4, 421–430. 10.3233/JPD-130233

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  LeiH.HuangZ.ZhouF.ElazabA.TanE.-L.LiH.et al. (2019). Parkinson's disease diagnosis via joint learning from multiple modalities and relations. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inf.23, 1437–1449. 10.1109/JBHI.2018.2868420

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  LewittP. A.LiJ.LuM.BeachT. G.AdlerC. H.GuoL.et al. (2013). 3-hydroxykynurenine and other Parkinson's disease biomarkers discovered by metabolomic analysis. Move. Disord.28, 1653–1660. 10.1002/mds.25555

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  LiQ.ChenH.HuangH.ZhaoX.CaiZ.TongC.et al. (2017). An enhanced grey wolf optimization based feature selection wrapped kernel extreme learning machine for medical diagnosis. Comput. Math. Methods Med.2017:9512741. 10.1155/2017/9512741

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  LiS.LeiH.ZhouF.GardeziJ.LeiB. (2019). Longitudinal and Multi-modal Data Learning for Parkinson's Disease Diagnosis via Stacked Sparse Auto-encoder, in 2019 IEEE 16th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 2019) (Venice), 384–387. 10.1109/ISBI.2019.8759385

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  LiuH.DuG.ZhangL.LewisM. M.WangX.YaoT.et al. (2016). Folded concave penalized learning in identifying multimodal MRI marker for Parkinson's disease. J. Neurosci. Methods268, 1–6. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2016.04.016

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  LiuL.WangQ.AdeliE.ZhangL.ZhangH.ShenD. (2016). Feature selection based on iterative canonical correlation analysis for automatic diagnosis of Parkinson's disease. Med. Image Comput. Computer Assist. Interv.9901, 1–8. 10.1007/978-3-319-46723-8_1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  MaC.OuyangJ.ChenH.-L.ZhaoX.-H. (2014). An efficient diagnosis system for Parkinson's disease using kernel-based extreme learning machine with subtractive clustering features weighting approach. Computat. Math. Methods Med.2014:985789. 10.1155/2014/985789

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  MaH.TanT.ZhouH.GaoT. (2016). Support Vector Machine-recursive feature elimination for the diagnosis of Parkinson disease based on speech analysis, in 2016 Seventh International Conference on Intelligent Control and Information Processing (ICICIP) (Siem Reap), 34–40. 10.1109/ICICIP.2016.7885912

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  MaassF.MichalkeB.LehaA.BoergerM.ZerrI.KochJ.-C.et al. (2018). Elemental fingerprint as a cerebrospinal fluid biomarker for the diagnosis of Parkinson's disease. J. Neurochemistry145, 342–351. 10.1111/jnc.14316

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  MaassF.MichalkeB.WillkommenD.LehaA.SchulteC.TöngesL.et al. (2020). Elemental fingerprint: reassessment of a cerebrospinal fluid biomarker for Parkinson's disease. Neurobiol. Dis.134:104677. 10.1016/j.nbd.2019.104677

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  MabroukR.ChikhaouiB.BentabetL. (2019). Machine learning based classification using clinical and DaTSCAN SPECT imaging features: a study on Parkinson's disease and SWEDD. IEEE Trans. Rad. Plasma Med. Sci.3, 170–177. 10.1109/TRPMS.2018.2877754

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  MandalI.SairamN. (2013). Accurate telemonitoring of Parkinson's disease diagnosis using robust inference system. Int. J. Med. Informatics82, 359–377. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.10.006

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  MararS.SwainD.HiwarkarV.MotwaniN.AwariA. (2018). Predicting the occurrence of Parkinson's disease using various classification models, in 2018 International Conference on Advanced Computation and Telecommunication (ICACAT) (Bhopal), 1–5. 10.1109/ICACAT.2018.8933579

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  MarekK.JenningsD.LaschS.SiderowfA.TannerC.SimuniT.et al. (2011). The parkinson progression marker initiative (PPMI). Progress Neurobiol.95, 629–635. 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2011.09.005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  MartínezM.VillagraF.CastelloteJ. M.PastorM. A. (2018). Kinematic and kinetic patterns related to free-walking in Parkinson's disease. Sensors18:4224. 10.3390/s18124224

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  Martinez-MurciaF. J.GórrizJ. M.RamírezJ.OrtizA. (2018). Convolutional neural networks for neuroimaging in Parkinson's disease: is preprocessing needed?Int. J. Neural Syst.28:1850035. 10.1142/S0129065718500351

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  MemediM.SadikovA.GroznikV.ŽabkarJ.MožinaM.BergquistF.et al. (2015). Automatic spiral analysis for objective assessment of motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease. Sensors15, 23727–23744. 10.3390/s150923727

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  MittraY.RustagiV. (2018). Classification of subjects with Parkinson's disease using gait data analysis, in 2018 International Conference on Automation and Computational Engineering (ICACE) (Greater Noida), 84–89. 10.1109/ICACE.2018.8687022

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  MoharkanZ. A.GargH.ChodhuryT.KumarP. (2017). A classification based Parkinson detection system, in 2017 International Conference On Smart Technologies For Smart Nation (SmartTechCon) (Bengaluru), 1509–1513. 10.1109/SmartTechCon.2017.8358616

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Inter. Med.151, 264–269. 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  MontañaD.Campos-RocaY.PérezC. J. (2018). A Diadochokinesis-based expert system considering articulatory features of plosive consonants for early detection of Parkinson's disease. Comp. Methods Programs Biomed.154, 89–97. 10.1016/j.cmpb.2017.11.010

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  MorisiR.MannersD. N.GneccoG.LanconelliN.TestaC.EvangelistiS.et al. (2018). Multi-class parkinsonian disorders classification with quantitative MR markers and graph-based features using support vector machines. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord.47, 64–70. 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2017.11.343

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  MuchaJ.MekyskaJ.Faundez-ZanuyM.Lopez-De-IpinaK.ZvoncakV.GalazZ.et al. (2018). Advanced Parkinson's disease dysgraphia analysis based on fractional derivatives of online handwriting, in 2018 10th International Congress on Ultra Modern Telecommunications and Control Systems and Workshops (ICUMT) (Moscow), 1–6. 10.1109/ICUMT.2018.8631265

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  NicastroN.WegrzykJ.PretiM. G.FleuryV.Van de VilleD.GaribottoV.et al. (2019). Classification of degenerative parkinsonism subtypes by support-vector-machine analysis and striatal (123)I-FP-CIT indices. J. Neurol.266, 1771–1781. 10.1007/s00415-019-09330-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  NõmmS.Bard,õšK.ToomelaA.MedijainenK.TabaP. (2018). Detailed analysis of the Luria's alternating seriestests for Parkinson's disease diagnostics, in 2018 17th IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA) (Orlando, FL), 1347–1352. 10.1109/ICMLA.2018.00219

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  NunesA.SilvaG.DuqueC.JanuárioC.SantanaI.AmbrósioA. F.et al. (2019). Retinal texture biomarkers may help to discriminate between Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and healthy controls. PLoS One14:e0218826. 10.1371/journal.pone.0218826

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  NuvoliS.SpanuA.FravoliniM. L.BianconiF.CascianelliS.MadedduG.et al. (2019). [(123)I]Metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) cardiac scintigraphy and automated classification techniques in Parkinsonian disorders. Mol. Imaging Biol.22, 703–710. 10.1007/s11307-019-01406-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  OliveiraF. P. M.Castelo-BrancoM. (2015). Computer-aided diagnosis of Parkinson's disease based on [(123)I]FP-CIT SPECT binding potential images, using the voxels-as-features approach and support vector machines. J. Neural Eng.12:026008. 10.1088/1741-2560/12/2/026008

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148

  OliveiraF. P. M.FariaD. B.CostaD. C.Castelo-BrancoM.TavaresJ. M. R. S. (2018). Extraction, selection and comparison of features for an effective automated computer-aided diagnosis of Parkinson's disease based on [(123)I]FP-CIT SPECT images. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging45, 1052–1062. 10.1007/s00259-017-3918-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  OliveiraH. M.MachadoA. R. P.AndradeA. O. (2018a). On the use of t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding for data visualization and classification of individuals with Parkinson's disease. Comput. Math. Methods Med.2018:8019232. 10.1155/2018/8019232

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  OparaJ.BrolaW.LeonardiM.BłaszczykB. (2012). Quality of life in Parkinsons disease. J. Med. Life5:375.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  OungQ. W.HariharanM.LeeH. L.BasahS. N.SarilleeM.LeeC. H. (2015). Wearable multimodal sensors for evaluation of patients with Parkinson disease, in 2015 IEEE International Conference on Control System, Computing and Engineering (ICCSCE) (Penang), 269–274. 10.1109/ICCSCE.2015.7482196

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152

  OzciftA. (2012). SVM feature selection based rotation forest ensemble classifiers to improve computer-aided diagnosis of Parkinson disease. J. Med. Syst.36, 2141–2147. 10.1007/s10916-011-9678-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153

  OzciftA.GultenA. (2011). Classifier ensemble construction with rotation forest to improve medical diagnosis performance of machine learning algorithms. Comp. Methods Progr. Biomed.104, 443–451. 10.1016/j.cmpb.2011.03.018

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  PahujaG.NagabhushanT. N. (2016). A novel GA-ELM approach for Parkinson's disease detection using brain structural T1-weighted MRI data, in 2016 Second International Conference on Cognitive Computing and Information Processing (CCIP) (Mysuru), 1–6. 10.1109/CCIP.2016.7802848

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  PalumboB.FravoliniM. L.BurestaT.PompiliF.ForiniN.NigroP.et al. (2014). Diagnostic accuracy of Parkinson disease by support vector machine (SVM) analysis of 123I-FP-CIT brain SPECT data: implications of putaminal findings and age. Medicine93:e228. 10.1097/MD.0000000000000228

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  PapadopoulosA.KyritsisK.KlingelhoeferL.BostanjopoulouS.ChaudhuriK. R.DelopoulosA. (2019). Detecting Parkinsonian tremor from IMU data collected in-the-wild using deep multiple-instance learning. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform.24, 2559–2569. 10.1109/JBHI.2019.2961748

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 157

  PapavasileiouI.ZhangW.WangX.BiJ.ZhangL.HanS. (2017). Classification of neurological gait disorders using multi-task feature learning, in 2017 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Connected Health: Applications, Systems and Engineering Technologies (CHASE) (Philadelphia, PA), 195–204. 10.1109/CHASE.2017.78

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  PekerM. (2016). A decision support system to improve medical diagnosis using a combination of k-medoids clustering based attribute weighting and SVM. J. Med. Syst.40:116. 10.1007/s10916-016-0477-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  PengB.WangS.ZhouZ.LiuY.TongB.ZhangT.et al. (2017). A multilevel-ROI-features-based machine learning method for detection of morphometric biomarkers in Parkinson's disease. Neurosci. Lett.651, 88–94. 10.1016/j.neulet.2017.04.034

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  PengB.ZhouZ.GengC.TongB.ZhouZ.ZhangT.et al. (2016). Computer aided analysis of cognitive disorder in patients with Parkinsonism using machine learning method with multilevel ROI-based features, in 2016 9th International Congress on Image and Signal Processing, BioMedical Engineering and Informatics (CISP-BMEI) (Datong), 1792–1796. 10.1109/CISP-BMEI.2016.7853008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  PereiraC. R.PereiraD. R.da SilvaF. A.HookC.WeberS. A.PereiraL. A.et al. (2015). A step towards the automated diagnosis of parkinson's disease: Analyzing handwriting movements, in 2015 IEEE 28th International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (Sao Carlos: IEEE), 171–176. 10.1109/CBMS.2015.34

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  PereiraC. R.PereiraD. R.RosaG. H.AlbuquerqueV. H. C.WeberS. A. T.HookC.et al. (2018). Handwritten dynamics assessment through convolutional neural networks: An application to Parkinson's disease identification. Artif. Intell. Med.87, 67–77. 10.1016/j.artmed.2018.04.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163

  PereiraC. R.PereiraD. R.SilvaF. A.MasieiroJ. P.WeberS. A. T.HookC.et al. (2016a). A new computer vision-based approach to aid the diagnosis of Parkinson's disease. Comp. Methods Progr. Biomed.136, 79–88. 10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.08.005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 164

  PereiraC. R.PereiraD. R.WeberS. A.HookC.de AlbuquerqueV. H. C.PapaJ. P. (2019). A survey on computer-assisted Parkinson's disease diagnosis. Artif. Intell. Med.95, 48–63. 10.1016/j.artmed.2018.08.007

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 165

  PereiraC. R.WeberS. A. T.HookC.RosaG. H.PapaJ. P. (2016b). Deep learning-aided Parkinson's disease diagnosis from handwritten dynamics, in 2016 29th SIBGRAPI Conference on Graphics, Patterns and Images (SIBGRAPI) (São Paulo), 340–346. 10.1109/SIBGRAPI.2016.054

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166

  PhamH. N.DoT. T. T.ChanK. Y. J.SenG.HanA. Y. K.LimP.et al. (2019). Multimodal detection of Parkinson disease based on vocal and improved spiral test, in 2019 International Conference on System Science and Engineering (ICSSE) (Dong Hoi), 279–284. 10.1109/ICSSE.2019.8823309

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167

  PhamT. D. (2018). Pattern analysis of computer keystroke time series in healthy control and early-stage Parkinson's disease subjects using fuzzy recurrence and scalable recurrence network features. J. Neurosci. Methods307, 194–202. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2018.05.019

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  PhamT. D.YanH. (2018). Tensor decomposition of gait dynamics in Parkinson's disease. IEEE Trans. Bio-Med. Eng.65, 1820–1827. 10.1109/TBME.2017.2779884

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169

  PostumaR. B.BergD.SternM.PoeweW.OlanowC. W.OertelW.et al. (2015). MDS clinical diagnostic criteria for Parkinson's disease. Move. Disord.30, 1591–1601. 10.1002/mds.26424

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 170

  PrashanthR.Dutta RoyS. (2018). Early detection of Parkinson's disease through patient questionnaire and predictive modelling. In. J. Med. Inform.119, 75–87. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.09.008

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 171

  PrashanthR.Dutta RoyS.MandalP. K.GhoshS. (2016). High-accuracy detection of early Parkinson's disease through multimodal features and machine learning. Int. J. Med. Inform.90, 13–21. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.03.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 172

  PrashanthR.RoyS. D.MandalP. K.GhoshS. (2014). Parkinson's disease detection using olfactory loss and REM sleep disorder features, in Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 2014, 5764–5767. 10.1109/EMBC.2014.6944937

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 173

  PrashanthR.RoyS. D.MandalP. K.GhoshS. (2017). High-accuracy classification of Parkinson's disease through shape analysis and surface fitting in 123I-Ioflupane SPECT imaging. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform.21, 794–802. 10.1109/JBHI.2016.2547901

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 174

  PrinceJ.AndreottiF.VosM. D. (2019). Multi-source ensemble learning for the remote prediction of Parkinson's disease in the presence of source-wise missing data. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng.66, 1402–1411. 10.1109/TBME.2018.2873252

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 175

  PrinceJ.de VosM. (2018). A deep learning framework for the remote detection of Parkinson's disease using smart-phone sensor data, in 2018 40th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) (Honolulu, HI), 3144–3147. 10.1109/EMBC.2018.8512972

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 176

  RamdhaniR. A.KhojandiA.ShyloO.KopellB. H. (2018). Optimizing clinical assessments in Parkinson's disease through the use of wearable sensors and data driven modeling. Front. Comput. Neurosci.12:72. 10.3389/fncom.2018.00072

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 177

  ReyesJ. F.MontealegreJ. S.CastanoY. J.UrcuquiC.NavarroA. (2019). LSTM and convolution networks exploration for Parkinson's diagnosis, in 2019 IEEE Colombian Conference on Communications and Computing (COLCOM) (Barranquilla), 1–4. 10.1109/ColComCon.2019.8809160

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 178

  RibeiroL. C. F.AfonsoL. C. S.PapaJ. P. (2019). Bag of samplings for computer-assisted Parkinson's disease diagnosis based on recurrent neural networks. Comp. Biol. Med.115:103477. 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2019.103477

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 179

  RicciM.LazzaroG. D.PisaniA.MercuriN. B.GianniniF.SaggioG. (2020). Assessment of motor impairments in early untreated parkinson's disease patients: the wearable electronics impact. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform.24, 120–130. 10.1109/JBHI.2019.2903627

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 180

  Rios-UrregoC. D.Vásquez-CorreaJ. C.Vargas-BonillaJ. F.NöthE.LoperaF.Orozco-ArroyaveJ. R. (2019). Analysis and evaluation of handwriting in patients with Parkinson's disease using kinematic, geometrical, and non-linear features. Comput. Methods Progr. Biomed.173, 43–52. 10.1016/j.cmpb.2019.03.005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 181

  RoviniE.MaremmaniC.MoschettiA.EspositoD.CavalloF. (2018). Comparative motor pre-clinical assessment in parkinson's disease using supervised machine learning approaches. Annals Biomed. Eng.46, 2057–2068. 10.1007/s10439-018-2104-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 182

  RoviniE.MoschettiA.FioriniL.EspositoD.MaremmaniC.CavalloF. (2019). Wearable sensors for prodromal motor assessment of parkinson's disease using supervised learning, in 2019 41st Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 4318–4321. 10.1109/EMBC.2019.8856804

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 183

  RubbertC.MathysC.JockwitzC.HartmannC. J.EickhoffS. B.HoffstaedterF.et al. (2019). Machine-learning identifies Parkinson's disease patients based on resting-state between-network functional connectivity. Br. J. Radiol.92:20180886. 10.1259/bjr.20180886

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 184

  SakarB. E.IsenkulM. E.SakarC. O.SertbasA.GurgenF.DelilS.et al. (2013). Collection and analysis of a Parkinson speech dataset with multiple types of sound recordings. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform.17, 828–834. 10.1109/JBHI.2013.2245674

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 185

  SalvatoreC.CerasaA.CastiglioniI.GallivanoneF.AugimeriA.LopezM.et al. (2014). Machine learning on brain MRI data for differential diagnosis of Parkinson's disease and progressive supranuclear palsy. J. Neurosci. Methods222, 230–237. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2013.11.016

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 186

  SayaydehaO. N. A.MohammadM. F. (2019). Diagnosis of the Parkinson disease using enhanced fuzzy min-max neural network and OneR attribute evaluation method, in 2019 International Conference on Advanced Science and Engineering (ICOASE) (Zakho-Duhok), 64–69. 10.1109/ICOASE.2019.8723870

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 187

  SchererR. W.SaldanhaI. J. (2019). How should systematic reviewers handle conference abstracts? A view from the trenches. Syst. Rev.8:264. 10.1186/s13643-019-1188-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 188

  SegoviaF.GórrizJ. M.RamírezJ.LevinJ.SchuberthM.BrendelM.et al. (2015). Analysis of 18F-DMFP PET data using multikernel classification in order to assist the diagnosis of Parkinsonism, in 2015 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC) (San Diego, CA), 1–4. 10.1109/NSSMIC.2015.7582227

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 189

  SegoviaF.GórrizJ. M.RamírezJ.Martínez-MurciaF. J.Castillo-BarnesD. (2019). Assisted diagnosis of Parkinsonism based on the striatal morphology. Int. J. Neural Syst.29:1950011. 10.1142/S0129065719500114

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 190

  ShahsavariM. K.RashidiH.BakhshH. R. (2016). Efficient classification of Parkinson's disease using extreme learning machine and hybrid particle swarm optimization, in 2016 4th International Conference on Control, Instrumentation, and Automation (ICCIA) (Qazvin), 148–154. 10.1109/ICCIAutom.2016.7483152

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 191

  ShamirR.KleinC.AmarD.VollstedtE.-J.BoninM.UsenovicM.et al. (2017). Analysis of blood-based gene expression in idiopathic Parkinson disease. Neurology89, 1676–1683. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000004516

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 192

  SheibaniR.NikookarE.AlaviS. E. (2019). An ensemble method for diagnosis of Parkinson's disease based on voice measurements. J. Med. Signals Sens.9, 221–226. 10.4103/jmss.JMSS_57_18

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 193

  ShenT.JiangJ.LinW.GeJ.WuP.ZhouY.et al. (2019). Use of overlapping group LASSO sparse deep belief network to discriminate Parkinson's disease and normal control. Front. Neurosci.13:396. 10.3389/fnins.2019.00396

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 194

  ShiJ.YanM.DongY.ZhengX.ZhangQ.AnH. (2018). Multiple kernel learning based classification of Parkinson's disease with multi-modal transcranial sonography, in 2018 40th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) (Honolulu, HI), 61–64. 10.1109/EMBC.2018.8512194

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 195

  ShindeS.PrasadS.SabooY.KaushickR.SainiJ.PalP. K.et al. (2019). Predictive markers for Parkinson's disease using deep neural nets on neuromelanin sensitive MRI. NeuroImage. Clin.22:101748. 10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101748

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 196

  SinghG.SamavedhamL. (2015). Unsupervised learning based feature extraction for differential diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases: a case study on early-stage diagnosis of Parkinson disease. J. Neurosci. Methods256, 30–40. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2015.08.011

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 197

  SinghG.SamavedhamL.LimE. C.-H.Alzheimer's Disease NeuroimagingI.Parkinson Progression MarkerI. (2018). Determination of imaging biomarkers to decipher disease trajectories and differential diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases (DIsease TreND). J. Neurosci. Methods305, 105–116. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2018.05.009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 198

  StoesselD.SchulteC.Teixeira Dos SantosM. C.SchellerD.Rebollo-MesaI.DeuschleC.et al. (2018). Promising metabolite profiles in the plasma and CSF of early clinical Parkinson's disease. Front. Aging Neurosci.10:51. 10.3389/fnagi.2018.00051

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 199

  SurangsriratD.ThanawattanoC.PongthornseriR.DumninS.AnanC.BhidayasiriR. (2016). Support vector machine classification of Parkinson's disease and essential tremor subjects based on temporal fluctuation. Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc.2016, 6389–6392. 10.1109/EMBC.2016.7592190

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 200

  SztahóD.TulicsM. G.VicsiK.ValálikI. (2017). Automatic estimation of severity of Parkinson's disease based on speech rhythm related features, in 2017 8th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications (CogInfoCom) (Debrecen), 000011–000016. 10.1109/CogInfoCom.2017.8268208

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 201

  SztahóD.ValálikI.VicsiK. (2019). Parkinson's disease severity estimation on Hungarian speech using various speech tasks, in 2019 International Conference on Speech Technology and Human-Computer Dialogue (SpeD) (Timisoara), 1–6. 10.1109/SPED.2019.8906277

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 202

  TagareH. D.DeLorenzoC.ChelikaniS.SapersteinL.FulbrightR. K. (2017). Voxel-based logistic analysis of PPMI control and Parkinson's disease DaTscans. NeuroImage152, 299–311. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.067

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 203

  TahavoriF.StackE.AgarwalV.BurnettM.AshburnA.HoseinitabatabaeiS. A.et al. (2017). Physical activity recognition of elderly people and people with parkinson's (PwP) during standard mobility tests using wearable sensors, in 2017 International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2) (Wuxi), 1–4. 10.1109/ISC2.2017.8090858

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 204

  TalebC.KhachabM.MokbelC.Likforman-SulemL. (2019). Visual representation of online handwriting time series for deep learning Parkinson's disease detection, in 2019 International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition Workshops (ICDARW) (Sydney, NSW), 25–30. 10.1109/ICDARW.2019.50111

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 205

  TangY.MengL.WanC. M.LiuZ. H.LiaoW. H.YanX. X.et al. (2017). Identifying the presence of Parkinson's disease using low-frequency fluctuations in BOLD signals. Neurosci. Lett.645, 1–6. 10.1016/j.neulet.2017.02.056

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 206

  TaylorJ. C.FennerJ. W. (2017). Comparison of machine learning and semi-quantification algorithms for (I123)FP-CIT classification: the beginning of the end for semi-quantification?EJNMMI Phys.4:29. 10.1186/s40658-017-0196-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 207

  TienI.GlaserS. D.AminoffM. J. (2010). Characterization of gait abnormalities in Parkinson's disease using a wireless inertial sensor system, in Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc.2010, 3353–3356. 10.1109/IEMBS.2010.5627904

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 208

  TracyJ. M.ÖzkancaY.AtkinsD. C.Hosseini GhomiR. (2019). Investigating voice as a biomarker: deep phenotyping methods for early detection of Parkinson's disease. J. Biomed. Inform.104:103362. 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103362

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 209

  TremblayC.MartelP. D.FrasnelliJ. (2017). Trigeminal system in Parkinson's disease: a potential avenue to detect Parkinson-specific olfactory dysfunction. Parkinsonism Relat. Dis.44, 85–90. 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2017.09.010

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 210

  TrezziJ.-P.GalozziS.JaegerC.BarkovitsK.BrockmannK.MaetzlerW.et al. (2017). Distinct metabolomic signature in cerebrospinal fluid in early parkinson's disease. Mov. Disord.32, 1401–1408. 10.1002/mds.27132

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 211

  TsanasA.LittleM. A.McSharryP. E.SpielmanJ.RamigL. O. (2012). Novel speech signal processing algorithms for high-accuracy classification of Parkinson's disease. IEEE Trans. Bio. Med. Eng.59, 1264–1271. 10.1109/TBME.2012.2183367

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 212

  TsengP.-H.CameronI. G. M.PariG.ReynoldsJ. N.MunozD. P.IttiL. (2013). High-throughput classification of clinical populations from natural viewing eye movements. J. Neurol.260, 275–284. 10.1007/s00415-012-6631-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 213

  TsudaM.AsanoS.KatoY.MuraiK.MiyazakiM. (2019). Differential diagnosis of multiple system atrophy with predominant parkinsonism and Parkinson's disease using neural networks. J. Neurol. Sci.401, 19–26. 10.1016/j.jns.2019.04.014

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 214

  TysnesO.-B.StorsteinA. (2017). Epidemiology of Parkinson's disease. J. Neural Trans.124, 901–905. 10.1007/s00702-017-1686-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 215

  UrcuquiC.CastañoY.DelgadoJ.NavarroA.DiazJ.MuñozB.et al. (2018). Exploring Machine Learning to Analyze Parkinson's Disease Patients, in 2018 14th International Conference on Semantics, Knowledge and Grids (SKG) (Guangzhou), 160–166. 10.1109/SKG.2018.00029

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 216

  VabalasA.GowenE.PoliakoffE.CassonA. J. (2019). Machine learning algorithm validation with a limited sample size. PLoS ONE14:e0224365. 10.1371/journal.pone.0224365

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 217

  VaiciukynasE.VerikasA.GelzinisA.BacauskieneM. (2017). Detecting Parkinson's disease from sustained phonation and speech signals. PLoS ONE12:e0185613. 10.1371/journal.pone.0185613

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 218

  VanegasM. I.GhilardiM. F.KellyS. P.BlangeroA. (2018). Machine learning for EEG-based biomarkers in Parkinson's disease, in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) (Madrid), 2661–2665. 10.1109/BIBM.2018.8621498

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 219

  VáradiC.NehézK.HornyákO.ViskolczB.BonesJ. (2019). Serum N-glycosylation in Parkinson's disease: a novel approach for potential alterations. Molecules24:2220. 10.3390/molecules24122220

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 220

  Vásquez-CorreaJ. C.Arias-VergaraT.Orozco-ArroyaveJ. R.EskofierB.KluckenJ.NöthE. (2019). Multimodal assessment of parkinson's disease: a deep learning approach. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform.23, 1618–1630. 10.1109/JBHI.2018.2866873

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 221

  VlachostergiouA.TagarisA.StafylopatisA.KolliasS. (2018). Multi-task learning for predicting Parkinson's disease based on medical imaging information, in 2018 25th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) (Athens), 2052–2056. 10.1109/ICIP.2018.8451398

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 222

  WahidF.BeggR. K.HassC. J.HalgamugeS.AcklandD. C. (2015). Classification of Parkinson's disease gait using spatial-temporal gait features. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform.19, 1794–1802. 10.1109/JBHI.2015.2450232

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 223

  WangZ.ZhuX.AdeliE.ZhuY.NieF.MunsellB.et al. (2017). Multi-modal classification of neurodegenerative disease by progressive graph-based transductive learning. Med Image Anal.39, 218–230. 10.1016/j.media.2017.05.003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 224

  WenJ.Thibeau-SutreE.Diaz-MeloM.Samper-GonzálezJ.RoutierA.BottaniS.et al. (2020). Convolutional neural networks for classification of Alzheimer's disease: overview and reproducible evaluation. Med. Image Anal.63:101694. 10.1016/j.media.2020.101694

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 225

  WenzelM.MilletariF.KrügerJ.LangeC.SchenkM.ApostolovaI.et al. (2019). Automatic classification of dopamine transporter SPECT: deep convolutional neural networks can be trained to be robust with respect to variable image characteristics. Eur. J. Nuclear Med. Mol. Imaging46, 2800–2811. 10.1007/s00259-019-04502-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 226

  WodzinskiM.SkalskiA.HemmerlingD.Orozco-ArroyaveJ. R.NöthE. (2019). Deep learning approach to Parkinson's disease detection using voice recordings and convolutional neural network dedicated to image classification, in 2019 41st Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) (Berlin), 717–720. 10.1109/EMBC.2019.8856972

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 227

  WuY.ChenP.YaoY.YeX.XiaoY.LiaoL.et al. (2017). Dysphonic voice pattern analysis of patients in Parkinson's disease using minimum interclass probability risk feature selection and bagging ensemble learning methods. Comput. Math. Methods Med.2017:4201984. 10.1155/2017/4201984

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 228

  WuY.JiangJ.-H.ChenL.LuJ.-Y.GeJ.-J.LiuF.-T.et al. (2019). Use of radiomic features and support vector machine to distinguish Parkinson's disease cases from normal controls. Ann. Transl. Med.7:773. 10.21037/atm.2019.11.26

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 229

  XiaY.YaoZ.YeQ.ChengN. (2020). A dual-modal attention-enhanced deep learning network for quantification of Parkinson's disease characteristics. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehab. Eng.28, 42–51. 10.1109/TNSRE.2019.2946194

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 230

  YadavG.KumarY.SahooG. (2011). Predication of Parkinson's disease using data mining methods: a comparative analysis of tree, statistical, and support vector machine classifiers. Ind. J. Med. Sci.65, 231–242. 10.4103/0019-5359.107023

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 231

  YagisE.HerreraA. G. S. D.CitiL. (2019). Generalization Performance of Deep Learning Models in Neurodegenerative Disease Classification, in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) (San Diego, CA), 1692–1698. 10.1109/BIBM47256.2019.8983088

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 232

  YamanO.ErtamF.TuncerT. (2020). Automated Parkinson's disease recognition based on statistical pooling method using acoustic features. Med. Hypoth.135:109483. 10.1016/j.mehy.2019.109483

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 233

  YangJ.-X.ChenL. (2017). Economic burden analysis of Parkinson's disease patients in China. Parkinson's Dis.2017:8762939. 10.1155/2017/8762939

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 234

  YangM.ZhengH.WangH.McCleanS. (2009). Feature selection and construction for the discrimination of neurodegenerative diseases based on gait analysis, in 2009 3rd International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (London), 1–7. 10.4108/ICST.PERVASIVEHEALTH2009.6053

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 235

  YangS.ZhengF.LuoX.CaiS.WuY.LiuK.et al. (2014). Effective dysphonia detection using feature dimension reduction and kernel density estimation for patients with Parkinson's disease. PLoS ONE9:e88825. 10.1371/journal.pone.0088825

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 236

  YeQ.XiaY.YaoZ. (2018). Classification of gait patterns in patients with neurodegenerative disease using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. Computat. Math. Methods Med.2018:9831252. 10.1155/2018/9831252

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 237

  ZengL.-L.XieL.ShenH.LuoZ.FangP.HouY.et al. (2017). Differentiating patients with Parkinson's disease from normal controls using gray matter in the cerebellum. Cerebellum16, 151–157. 10.1007/s12311-016-0781-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 238

  ZesiewiczT. A.SullivanK. L.HauserR. A. (2006). Nonmotor symptoms of Parkinson's disease. Expert Rev. Neurother.6, 1811–1822. 10.1586/14737175.6.12.1811

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 239

  ZhangX.HeL.ChenK.LuoY.ZhouJ.WangF. (2018). Multi-view graph convolutional network and its applications on neuroimage analysis for Parkinson's disease. Annu. Symp. Proc.2018, 1147–1156.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 240

  ZhaoY.WuP.WangJ.LiH.NavabN.YakushevI.et al. (2019). A 3D deep residual convolutional neural network for differential diagnosis of Parkinsonian syndromes on 18F-FDG PET images, in 2019 41st Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 3531–3534. 10.1109/EMBC.2019.8856747

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar