Item Response Modeling and Artificial Neural Network for Differentiation of Parkinson's Patients and Subjects Without Evidence of Dopaminergic Deficit

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology Pub Date : 2025-03-05 DOI:10.1002/psp4.70000
Leticia Arrington, Sven C. van Dijkman, Elodie L. Plan, Mats O. Karlsson
{"title":"Item Response Modeling and Artificial Neural Network for Differentiation of Parkinson's Patients and Subjects Without Evidence of Dopaminergic Deficit","authors":"Leticia Arrington,&nbsp;Sven C. van Dijkman,&nbsp;Elodie L. Plan,&nbsp;Mats O. Karlsson","doi":"10.1002/psp4.70000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Approximately 15% of patients suspected of having Parkinson's disease (PD) present dopamine active transporter (DaT) scans without evidence of dopaminergic deficits (SWEDD), most of which will never develop PD. Leveraging Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) scores from the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative, three different models of varying complexity, (total score, item response theory (IRT) and artificial neural network (ANN)) were evaluated to determine their ability to differentiate between PD and SWEDDs. Each of the models provided as output a predicted probability of having PD (P<sub>DeNoPD</sub>). Both the IRT and ANN methods performed well as classifiers; ROC AUC &gt; 80%, sensitivity &gt; 93%, and precision ~90% when assuming a probability cutoff of P<sub>DeNoPD</sub> ≥ 50%. Specificity was 43% and 38% for IRT and ANN respectively. Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) was also evaluated as a metric to address potential bias of majority positive class. At all cutoffs at or above 50%, the IRT and ANN model performed similarly and achieved a MCC of at least 0.3, indicating at least a moderate positive relationship for classifier performance. In contrast, the total score model was a poor classifier, for all metrics and cutoffs. Using item-level data the proposed methodologies differentiated PD patients from SWEDDs with a degree of sensitivity and specificity that may compete with clinical examination and could aid in selecting DaTscan candidates. The choice of cutoff criteria, quality metric, and classifier model are contingent upon specific clinical needs.</p>","PeriodicalId":10774,"journal":{"name":"CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology","volume":"14 5","pages":"881-890"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/psp4.70000","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/psp4.70000","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Approximately 15% of patients suspected of having Parkinson's disease (PD) present dopamine active transporter (DaT) scans without evidence of dopaminergic deficits (SWEDD), most of which will never develop PD. Leveraging Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) scores from the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative, three different models of varying complexity, (total score, item response theory (IRT) and artificial neural network (ANN)) were evaluated to determine their ability to differentiate between PD and SWEDDs. Each of the models provided as output a predicted probability of having PD (PDeNoPD). Both the IRT and ANN methods performed well as classifiers; ROC AUC > 80%, sensitivity > 93%, and precision ~90% when assuming a probability cutoff of PDeNoPD ≥ 50%. Specificity was 43% and 38% for IRT and ANN respectively. Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) was also evaluated as a metric to address potential bias of majority positive class. At all cutoffs at or above 50%, the IRT and ANN model performed similarly and achieved a MCC of at least 0.3, indicating at least a moderate positive relationship for classifier performance. In contrast, the total score model was a poor classifier, for all metrics and cutoffs. Using item-level data the proposed methodologies differentiated PD patients from SWEDDs with a degree of sensitivity and specificity that may compete with clinical examination and could aid in selecting DaTscan candidates. The choice of cutoff criteria, quality metric, and classifier model are contingent upon specific clinical needs.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
项目反应模型与人工神经网络在帕金森患者与无多巴胺能缺陷受试者鉴别中的应用。
大约 15%的帕金森病(PD)疑似患者会出现多巴胺活性转运体(DaT)扫描,但没有多巴胺能缺陷(SWEDD)的证据,其中大部分患者永远不会发展为帕金森病。利用帕金森病进展标志物倡议(Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative)中的运动障碍协会统一帕金森病评分量表(MDS-UPDRS)得分,对三种不同复杂程度的模型(总分、项目反应理论(IRT)和人工神经网络(ANN))进行了评估,以确定它们区分帕金森病和西南EDD 的能力。每个模型的输出结果都是患有肢端麻痹症的预测概率(PDeNoPD)。IRT 和 ANN 方法作为分类器均表现良好;假设 PDeNoPD 的概率临界值≥ 50%,ROC AUC > 80%,灵敏度 > 93%,精确度 ~90%。IRT 和 ANN 的特异性分别为 43% 和 38%。还评估了马修斯相关系数(MCC),作为解决多数阳性类潜在偏差的指标。在 50%或以上的所有临界值中,IRT 和 ANN 模型的表现相似,MCC 至少达到 0.3,表明分类器性能至少存在中等程度的正相关。相比之下,总分模型在所有指标和分界点上的分类效果都很差。通过使用项目级数据,所提出的方法可将脊髓灰质炎患者与西南偏瘫患者区分开来,其灵敏度和特异性可与临床检查相媲美,并有助于选择 DaTscan 候选者。截断标准、质量指标和分类器模型的选择取决于具体的临床需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
11.40%
发文量
146
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Building Hybrid Pharmacometric-Machine Learning Models in Oncology Drug Development: Current State and Recommendations. Characterizing Apixaban Pharmacokinetics Through Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling: Critical Role of Biliary Secretion and Enterohepatic Circulation in Humans. Issue Information Beyond the Michaelis-Menten: Evaluation of a tQSSA-Based IVIVE Approach for Predicting In Vivo Intrinsic Clearance From Hepatocyte Assays. Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1