| Literature DB >> 30978990 |
Shih-Yen Hsu1, Hsin-Chieh Lin2,3, Tai-Been Chen4, Wei-Chang Du5, Yun-Hsuan Hsu6, Yi-Chen Wu7,8, Po-Wei Tu9, Yung-Hui Huang10, Huei-Yung Chen11.
Abstract
The neuroimaging techniques such as dopaminergic imaging using Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) with 99mTc-TRODAT-1 have been employed to detect the stages of Parkinson's disease (PD). In this retrospective study, a total of 202 99mTc-TRODAT-1 SPECT imaging were collected. All of the PD patient cases were separated into mild (HYS Stage 1 to Stage 3) and severe (HYS Stage 4 and Stage 5) PD, according to the Hoehn and Yahr Scale (HYS) standard. A three-dimensional method was used to estimate six features of activity distribution and striatal activity volume in the images. These features were skewness, kurtosis, Cyhelsky's skewness coefficient, Pearson's median skewness, dopamine transporter activity volume, and dopamine transporter activity maximum. Finally, the data were modeled using logistic regression (LR) and support vector machine (SVM) for PD classification. The results showed that SVM classifier method produced a higher accuracy than LR. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, accuracy, and AUC with SVM method were 0.82, 1.00, 0.84, 0.67, 0.83, and 0.85, respectively. Additionally, the Kappa value was shown to reach 0.68. This claimed that the SVM-based model could provide further reference for PD stage classification in medical diagnosis. In the future, more healthy cases will be expected to clarify the false positive rate in this classification model.Entities:
Keywords: 99mTc-TRODAT-1; Parkinson’s disease; logistic regression; support vector machine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30978990 PMCID: PMC6480576 DOI: 10.3390/s19071740
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Number of cases according to Hoehn and Yahr Scale (HYS) standard.
Figure 2A flow chart of experimental design.
Figure 3Histogram plots between normal and Parkinson’s Disease (PD) stage. Maximum intensity projection (MIP) shown the calculation of whole brain and correspond to histogram. The histogram can describe active uptake in whole brain via values of skewness (SK).
Figure 4Using Seed region growing method calculate the volume of striatal activity. (left) 99mTc-TRODAT-1 SPECT image, (middle) striatal activity in single slide, (right) whole brain (3D) striatal activity.
Six features were calculated from whole brain and striatal.
| Features | Formula | Location |
|---|---|---|
| SK |
| Whole-brain |
| KUR |
| Whole-brain |
| CSK |
| Whole-brain |
| MES |
| Whole-brain |
| DTAV |
| striatal |
| DTAM |
| striatal |
The descriptive statistical and Kruskal–Wallis test results between healthy, mild (HYS Stage 1 to Stage 3), and severe (HYS Stage 4 and Stage 5) (n = 202).
| Features | Group | Cases | Mean | 95% Confidence Index | Standard Deviation | Minimum | Maximum | Kruskal–Wallis Test (P-value) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||||||
| SK | Healthy | 6 | 0.520 | 0.003 | 1.041 | 0.490 | −0.330 | 1.090 | <0.001 |
| Mild | 102 | 0.050 | −0.009 | 0.108 | 0.290 | −0.550 | 0.750 | ||
| Severe | 94 | −0.210 | −0.263 | −0.157 | 0.260 | −0.870 | 0.380 | ||
| KUR | Healthy | 6 | 4.980 | 3.383 | 6.574 | 1.520 | 3.530 | 7.710 | <0.001 |
| Mild | 102 | 3.270 | 3.155 | 3.375 | 0.560 | 2.390 | 5.040 | ||
| Severe | 94 | 2.670 | 2.602 | 2.736 | 0.330 | 2.100 | 4.050 | ||
| CSK | Healthy | 6 | −0.010 | −0.111 | 0.087 | 0.090 | −0.200 | 0.070 | 0.046 |
| Mild | 102 | −0.050 | −0.068 | −0.034 | 0.090 | −0.260 | 0.130 | ||
| Severe | 94 | −0.070 | −0.091 | −0.058 | 0.080 | −0.260 | 0.110 | ||
| MES | Healthy | 6 | −0.040 | −0.334 | 0.256 | 0.280 | −0.550 | 0.220 | 0.033 |
| Mild | 102 | −0.170 | −0.233 | −0.112 | 0.310 | −0.890 | 0.570 | ||
| Severe | 94 | −0.260 | −0.316 | −0.205 | 0.270 | −0.810 | 0.440 | ||
| DTAV | Healthy | 6 | 33.680 | 26.780 | 40.582 | 6.580 | 24.290 | 40.470 | <0.001 |
| Mild | 102 | 15.850 | 14.940 | 16.753 | 4.630 | 7.390 | 28.940 | ||
| Severe | 94 | 10.090 | 9.178 | 10.993 | 4.430 | 0.720 | 17.640 | ||
| DTAM | Healthy | 6 | 291.330 | 147.010 | 435.660 | 137.530 | 95.000 | 459.000 | <0.001 |
| Mild | 102 | 364.900 | 347.280 | 382.570 | 89.830 | 230.000 | 739.000 | ||
| Severe | 94 | 298.240 | 280.660 | 315.830 | 85.840 | 141.000 | 509.000 | ||
The Dunn–Bonferroni test results between healthy, mild (HYS Stage 1 to Stage 3), and severe (HYS Stage 4 and Stage 5) (n = 202).
| Feature | Control Group | Compare Group | Dunn–Bonferroni Test (P-value) | Feature | Control Group | Compare Group | Dunn–Bonferroni Test(P-value) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SK | Healthy | Mild | 0.170 | MES | Healthy | Mild | 0.704 |
| Severe | 0.001 | Severe | 0.172 | ||||
| Mild | Healthy | 0.170 | Mild | Healthy | 0.704 | ||
| Severe | 0.001 | Severe | 0.106 | ||||
| Severe | Healthy | 0.001 | Severe | Healthy | 0.172 | ||
| Mild | 0.001 | Mild | 0.106 | ||||
| KUR | Healthy | Mild | 0.038 | DTAV | Healthy | Mild | 0.012 |
| Severe | 0.001 | Severe | 0.001 | ||||
| Mild | Healthy | 0.038 | Mild | Healthy | 0.012 | ||
| Severe | 0.001 | Severe | 0.001 | ||||
| Severe | Healthy | 0.001 | Severe | Healthy | 0.001 | ||
| Mild | 0.001 | Mild | 0.001 | ||||
| CSK | Healthy | Mild | 0.553 | DTAM | Healthy | Mild | 0.596 |
| Severe | 0.153 | Severe | 0.999 | ||||
| Mild | Healthy | 0.553 | Mild | Healthy | 0.596 | ||
| Severe | 0.193 | Severe | 0.001 | ||||
| Severe | Healthy | 0.153 | Severe | Healthy | 0.999 | ||
| Mild | 0.193 | Mild | 0.001 |
Names of each classified variable.
| Item | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Group 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | SK | KUR | DTAV | SK, KUR | SK, KUR, DTAV |
| Name | FAV | FAD | FADV |
Annotation: FADV = Features of Activity Volume, FAD = Features of Activity Distribution, FADV = Features of Activity Distribution and Volume
The validation of classify model between LR and SVM in healthy, mild, and severe patient (n = 101).
| Validation | LR | SVM | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SK | KUR | FAV | FAD | FADV | SK | KUR | FAV | FAD | FADV | |
| Sensitivity | 0.667 | 0.737 | 0.747 | 0.768 | 0.818 | 0.657 | 0.747 | 0.747 | 0.788 | 0.828 |
| Specificity | 0.500 | 0.500 | 1.000 | 0.500 | 1.000 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 1.000 | 0.500 | 1.000 |
| PPV | 0.660 | 0.730 | 0.747 | 0.760 | 0.827 | 0.650 | 0.755 | 0.747 | 0.780 | 0.837 |
| NPV | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.667 | 1.000 | 0.333 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.667 |
| Accuracy | 0.663 | 0.733 | 0.752 | 0.762 | 0.822 | 0.653 | 0.753 | 0.752 | 0.782 | 0.832 |
| AUC | 0.738 | 0.840 | 0.845 | 0.866 | 0.905 | 0.739 | 0.790 | 0.768 | 0.865 | 0.845 |
| Kappa | 0.344 | 0.482 | 0.527 | 0.539 | 0.661 | 0.326 | 0.509 | 0.523 | 0.578 | 0.680 |