| Literature DB >> 34130692 |
Felipe Fernandes1, Ingridy Barbalho2, Daniele Barros2, Ricardo Valentim2, César Teixeira3, Jorge Henriques3, Paulo Gil3, Mário Dourado Júnior2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The use of machine learning (ML) techniques in healthcare encompasses an emerging concept that envisages vast contributions to the tackling of rare diseases. In this scenario, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) involves complexities that are yet not demystified. In ALS, the biomedical signals present themselves as potential biomarkers that, when used in tandem with smart algorithms, can be useful to applications within the context of the disease.Entities:
Keywords: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis—ALS; Artificial intelligence; Biomedical signals; Chronic neurological conditions; Machine learning; Motor neuron disease; Signal processing
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34130692 PMCID: PMC8207575 DOI: 10.1186/s12938-021-00896-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Eng Online ISSN: 1475-925X Impact factor: 2.819
Research questions
| RQ | Description |
|---|---|
| 01 | For what purpose is the processing of signals used? |
| 02 | What are the types of signals analyzed by the study? |
| 03 | What intelligent techniques are used in the study? |
| 04 | What is the performance of the analyzed techniques? |
| 05 | How many subjects are used to test or validate the study? |
Fig. 1Methodology steps
Inclusion criteria
| IC | Description |
|---|---|
| 01 | Articles published between 2009 and 2019 |
| 02 | Research articles published in Journals |
| 03 | Articles in the areas of technology, engineering or computer science |
Exclusion criteria
| EC | Description |
|---|---|
| 01 | Duplicate articles |
| 02 | Studies not related to the processing of biomedical signals, ML, smart systems and data analysis of patients with ALS |
Quality assessment
| QA | Description |
|---|---|
| 01 | Does the study clearly describe the types of biomedical signals? |
| 02 | Does the study describe how signal processing is performed (algorithmic techniques, intelligent systems)? |
| 03 | Does the study describe the process of the proposed application for ALS patients (does it detail how it was applied)? |
| 04 | Does the study clearly describe its scientific contributions to the evolution of ALS-related research? |
Fig. 2Result of the search and screening process of primary studies for this systematic review
Set of selected articles and their main characteristics
| Study | Year | Score | Goal | Signals | Dataset | Subjects | Best model | Performance (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HC/ALS/OD | Acc | Spe | Sen | |||||||
| Chatterjee et al. [ | 2019 | 1.0 | Diagnosis | EMG | Public | –/8/7 | SVM | 98.58 | 99.5 | 97.66 |
| Zhang et al. [ | 2014 | 1.0 | Diagnosis | EMG | Local | 11/10/– | LDA | – | 100 | 90 |
| Hazarika et al. [ | 2019 | 1.0 | Diagnosis | EMG | Public | 10/8/7 and 4/4/4 | QDC and QDC | 99.03 and 100 | 99.58 and 100 | 96 and 100 |
| Gokgoz and Subasi [ | 2014 | 1.0 | Diagnosis | EMG | Local | 10/8/7 | SVM | 92.55 | 90.3 | 96.33 |
| Ambikapathy et al. [ | 2018 | 0.875 | Diagnosis | EMG | Public | – | ANN | 96.6 | 100 | 93.7 |
| Doulah et al. [ | 2014 | 1.0 | Diagnosis | EMG | Public | 10/8/7 | KNN | 98.8 | 100 | 98 |
| Vallejo et al. [ | 2018 | 1.0 | Diagnosis | EMG | Public | 10/8/7 | ANN | 98 | 97.5 | 100 |
| Gokgoz and Subasi [ | 2015 | 1.0 | Diagnosis | EMG | Public | 10/8/7 | RF | 96.67 | 94.75 | 99.58 |
| Xia et al. [ | 2015 | 0.875 | Diagnosis | GR | Public | 16/13/35 | SVM | 96.55 | 94 | 100 |
| Ren et al. [ | 2017 | 1.0 | Diagnosis | GR | Public | 16/13/35 | MLP | – | – | – |
| Khorasani et al. [ | 2016 | 0.875 | Diagnosis | GR | Public | 16/13/– | FHMM | 93.1 | 93.75 | 92.31 |
| Welsh et al. [ | 2013 | 1.0 | Diagnosis | MRI | Local | 31/32/– | SVM | 71.5 | – | – |
| Ferraro et al. [ | 2017 | 0.75 | Diagnosis | MRI | Local | 78/123/64 | RF | 91 | 92 | 91 |
| Miao et al. [ | 2020 | 1.0 | Communication | EEG | Local | –/18/– | BLDA | 90 | – | – |
| Liu et al. [ | 2017 | 0.875 | Communication | EEG | Local | –/5/– | KNN and LDA | 95.25 | – | – |
| Sorbello et al. [ | 2018 | 0.75 | Communication | EEG | Local | 4/4/– | LDA | – | – | – |
| Mainsah et al. [ | 2015 | 0.875 | Communication | EEG | Local | –/10/– | DSLM | 76.39 | – | – |
| van der Burgh et al. [ | 2017 | 1.0 | Survival | MRI | Local | –/135/– | DLN | 84.4 | – | – |
HC healthy controls, OD other diseases, Acc accuracy, Spe specificity, Sen sensitivity, EMG electromyography, EEG electroencephalogram, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, GR gait rhythm, SVM support vector machine, RF random forest, LDA linear discriminant analysis, QDC quadratic classifier, ANN Artificial Neural Network, KNN k-Nearest Neighbor, MLP Multilayer Perceptron, FHMM Factorial hidden Markov model, BLDA Bayesian linear discriminant analysis, DSLM dynamic stopping with language model, DLN Deep Learning Networks
aThe study did experiments on two datasets
Fig. 3Summary of the signals used and their objectives
Fig. 4Number of individuals used in the studies
Fig. 5Number of studies by type of biomedical signal defined in the diagnosis class
Fig. 6Quantitative of the best algorithmic models and the respective biomedical signals
Fig. 7Generic pipeline: generalized scheme for solving classification problems