| Literature DB >> 30008740 |
Atcharin Klomsae1,2, Sansanee Auephanwiriyakul1,2,3, Nipon Theera-Umpon2,4.
Abstract
Neurodegenerative diseases that affect serious gait abnormalities include Parkinson's disease (PD), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and Huntington disease (HD). These diseases lead to gait rhythm distortion that can be determined by stride time interval of footfall contact times. In this paper, we present a new method for gait classification of neurodegenerative diseases. In particular, we utilize a symbolic aggregate approximation algorithm to convert left-foot stride-stride interval into a sequence of symbols using a symbolic aggregate approximation. We then find string prototypes of each class using the newly proposed string grammar unsupervised possibilistic fuzzy C-medians. Then in the testing process the fuzzy k-nearest neighbor is used. We implement the system on three 2-class problems, i.e., the classification of ALS against healthy patients, that of HD against healthy patients , and that of PD against healthy patients. The system is also implemented on one 4-class problem (the classification of ALS, HD, PD, and healthy patients altogether) called NDDs versus healthy. We found that our system yields a very good detection result. The average correct classification for ALS versus healthy is 96.88%, and that for HD versus healthy is 97.22%, whereas that for PD versus healthy is 96.43%. When the system is implemented on 4-class problem, the average accuracy is approximately 98.44%. It can provide prototypes of gait signals that are more understandable to human.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30008740 PMCID: PMC6020503 DOI: 10.1155/2018/1869565
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1An example from (a) the Copenhagen chromosomes data set, (b) the MNIST data set, and (c) the USPS data set.
Results from 3 data sets [6].
| Data set | Validation sets | Blind test data set |
|---|---|---|
| Average error ± standard deviation (%) | Average error ± standard deviation (%) | |
| Copenhagen chromosomes | 87.05%±1.23% | 87.82%±1.65% |
| MNIST | 97.89%±0.21% | 98.09%±0.44% |
| USPS | 95.53%±0.31% | 93.46%±0.91% |
Figure 2An example of sequence of stride times from different groups of subjects including (a) a subject with ALS disease, (b) a subject with HD, (c) a subject with PD, and (d) a healthy control (CO) subject.
Figure 3System overview of gait patterns classification in patients with neurodegenerative diseases.
Figure 4Example of string generation from gait time series.
Algorithm 1
Algorithm 2The average ± standard deviation of classification rate of ALS versus healthy validation set.
| # prototypes ( |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | 5 | |
| 2 | 93.304±7.767 | 79.018±8.794 | - |
| 3 |
| 89.732±6.897 | 69.643±14.725 |
| 4 | 92.857±8.248 | 92.857±8.248 | 86.161±11.698 |
| 5 | 89.732±6.897 | 93.304±7.767 | 79.018±8.794 |
The average ± standard deviation of classification rate of HD versus healthy validation set.
| # prototypes ( |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | 5 | |
| 2 |
| 88.889±12.830 | - |
| 3 | 91.667±10.638 | 88.889±9.072 | 77.778±20.286 |
| 4 | 91.667±10.638 | 83.333±11.111 | 83.333±14.344 |
| 5 | 80.556±5.556 | 83.333±6.415 | 80.556±16.667 |
The average ± standard deviation of classification rate of PD versus healthy validation set.
| # prototypes ( |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | 5 | |
| 2 |
| 74.553±13.937 | - |
| 3 | 90.179±12.156 | 83.929±15.636 | 77.679±11.527 |
| 4 | 90.179±12.156 | 87.054±17.700 | 77.679±11.527 |
| 5 | 87.054±10.245 | 87.054±10.245 | 80.804±12.231 |
The average ± standard deviation of classification rate of NDDs versus healthy validation set.
| # prototypes ( |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | 5 | |
| 2 |
| 90.625±8.069 | - |
| 3 | 92.188 | 90.625±6.250 | 89.063±9.375 |
| 4 | 90.625 | 87.50±7.217 | 85.938±9.375 |
| 5 | 85.938±9.375 | 84.375±8.069 | 82.820±9.375 |
Sensitivity and specificity of ALS, HD, PD, and NDDs detection.
| Sensitivity | Specificity | |
|---|---|---|
| ALS versus healthy | 100.00±0.00 | 93.75±12.50 |
| HD versus Healthy | 95.00±10.00 | 100.00±0.00 |
| PD versus Healthy | 93.75±12.50 | 100.00±0.00 |
| NDDs versus healthy | 97.92±4.17 | 93.75±12.50 |
Figure 5Closest time series to the prototypes of ALS and healthy patient.
Figure 6Closest time series to the prototypes of HD and healthy patient.
Figure 7Closest time series to the prototypes of PD and healthy patient.
Figure 8Closest time series to the prototypes of NDDs and healthy patient.
Comparison of the proposed method with the existing methods.
| Method | Classification error rate (%) |
|---|---|
| ALS versus Healthy (2-class problem) | |
| Our proposed method |
|
| Symbolic entropy [ | 82 |
| Radial basis function (RBF) neural networks (All-training-all-testing) [ | 93.1 |
| Radial basis function (RBF) neural networks (Leave-one-out) [ | 89.66 |
| Least squares support vector machine (Leave-one-out) [ | 82.8 |
| Radial basis function (RBF) support vector machines [ | 96.79 |
| Meta-classifier [ | 96.1326 |
|
| |
| HD versus Healthy (2-class problem) | |
| Our proposed method |
|
| Symbolic entropy [ | 95 |
| Radial basis function (RBF) neural networks (All-training-all-testing) [ | 100 |
| Radial basis function (RBF) neural networks (Leave-one-out) [ | 83.33 |
| Radial basis function (RBF) support vector machines [ | 90.23 |
| Meta-classifier [ | 88.674 |
|
| |
| PD versus Healthy (2-class problem) | |
| Our proposed method |
|
| Symbolic entropy [ | 89 |
| Radial basis function (RBF) neural networks (All-training-all-testing) [ | 100 |
| Radial basis function (RBF) neural networks (Leave-one-out) [ | 87.1 |
| Radial basis function (RBF) support vector machines [ | 89.33 |
| Meta-classifier [ | 90.3581 |
|
| |
| NDDs versus Healthy (4-class problem) | |
| Our proposed method |
|
| Radial basis function (RBF) neural networks [ | 93.75 |
| K | 99.17 |
| DECORATE [ | 94.69 |
| Random Forest [ | 94.69 |
| Radial basis function (RBF) support vector machines [ | 90.63 |