| Literature DB >> 26879864 |
Antonio Augimeri1, Andrea Cherubini2, Giuseppe Lucio Cascini3, Domenico Galea4, Maria Eugenia Caligiuri5, Gaetano Barbagallo6, Gennarina Arabia7, Aldo Quattrone8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dopamine transporter (DaT) imaging (DaTSCAN) is useful for the differential diagnosis of parkinsonian syndromes. Visual evaluation of DaTSCAN images represents the generally accepted diagnostic method, but it is strongly dependent on the observer's experience and shows inter- and intra-observer variability. A reliable and automatic method for DaTSCAN evaluation can provide objective quantification; it is desirable for longitudinal studies, and it allows for a better follow-up control. Moreover, it is crucial for an automated method to produce coherent measures related to the severity of motor symptoms.Entities:
Keywords: Computer-aided diagnosis; DaTSCAN; Parkinson’s disease
Year: 2016 PMID: 26879864 PMCID: PMC4754234 DOI: 10.1186/s40658-016-0140-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EJNMMI Phys ISSN: 2197-7364
Demographic and clinical features in PD and HC participants
| Characteristic | PD ( | HC ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (mean ± SD) | 63.77 ± 9.65 | 62.67 ± 11 | NSa |
| F/M | 13/18 | 7/5 | NSb |
| Age at onset (mean ± SD) | 60.2 ± 6.4 | - | - |
| Duration of disease (mean ± SD) | 7.5 ± 5.3 | - | - |
| H&Y (mean ± SD) | 2.5 ± 0.5 | - | - |
| UPDRS-ME score (mean ± SD) | 29.13 ± 8.65 | - | - |
SD standard deviation, NS non-significant, UPDRS-ME Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale Motor Examination
aThis p value was determined using an unpaired t test
bThis p value was determined using χ 2 test
Fig. 1CADA workflow process
Classification accuracy of the different models
| Exp1 (%) | Exp2 (%) | Exp3 (%) | Exp4 (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correct rate | 95.35 | 0.9767 | 100 | 100 |
| AUC | 96.77 | 0.9839 | 100 | 100 |
| Specificity | 93.55 | 0.9677 | 100 | 100 |
| Sensitivity | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
AUC area under curve
Fig. 2SVM Classiefier results (Experiment 4): scatter plot and hiperplane
Accuracy comparison between CADA, visual assessment and semi-quantitative assessment
| Assessment method | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Visuala | 96 | 100 | 97 |
| Semi-quantitativeb | 100 | 83 | 95 |
| CADA | 100 | 100 | 100 |
aPerformed by an expert neurologist with years of experience in the field of movement disorders
bPerformed by nuclear medicine experts blinded to clinical data
Fig. 3Linear and exponential regression models. SMU (averaged over both hemispheres) versus UPDRS-ME score