| Literature DB >> 34345227 |
Wei Chen1, Maode Wang1, Ning Wang1, Changwang Du1, Xudong Ma1, Qi Li1.
Abstract
This study was to explore the effect of subthalamic nucleus- (STN-) deep brain stimulation (DBS) on the neuropsychiatric function of Parkinson's disease (PD) patients using the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) image analysis technology and the artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm. In this study, 40 PD patients admitted to our hospital from August 2018 to March 2020 were selected as the research objects, and they were divided into a control group and an observation group according to the random number table method, with 20 cases in each group. The patients in the control group were given oral treatment with levodopa tablets; and patients in the observation group were treated with STN-DBS + levodopa tablets. In patients, MRI examinations were performed before and after the treatment, and the image optimization processing algorithm under AI was adopted to process the images. The MRI imaging results of the two groups of patients were observed, analyzed, and compared before and after treatment; and the sports, cognition, and mental states of the two groups of patients were analyzed. It was believed that the MRI image before using the AI algorithm was blurry, and the image was clear after the noise reduction optimization process, which was convenient for observation. The data analysis revealed that the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) after denoising (32.41) and structural similarity (SSIM) (0.79) had been improved. The results of the study suggested that the space occupation and bleeding symptoms of the two groups of patients were reduced after treatment, and those in the observation group were better than those of the control group; the incidences of dyskinesia and motor symptom fluctuations in the observation group were 5% and 0%, respectively, which were lower than those in the control group (35% and 25%, respectively). After treatment, the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score of the two groups of patients decreased, and it was lower in the observation group than in the control group; and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Mental State Scale (MMSE) scores increased, and those in the observation group were higher in contrast to those in the control group (all P < 0.05). STN-DBS was beneficial to improve the clinical symptoms of patients and delay the progress of the disease, and MRI based on AI algorithms can effectively observe the changes in the neuropsychiatric function of patients, which was conducive to further clinical diagnosis and treatment.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34345227 PMCID: PMC8285199 DOI: 10.1155/2021/9915206
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.161
Comparison on the basic data of patients in two groups.
| Control | Observation |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Males | 11 | 13 |
|
| Females | 9 | 7 | |
| Age (years old) | 74.09 ± 2.67 | 74.33 ± 2.16 | |
| Course of the disease | 6.11 ± 2.07 | 6.46 ± 2.19 | |
| Clinical symptoms | |||
| Stiffness and less exercise | 4 | 5 | |
| Tremor | 9 | 7 | |
| Hybrid | 7 | 8 | |
| Hoehn–Yahr grade | |||
| Grade II | 6 | 5 | |
| Grade III | 5 | 4 | |
| Grade IV | 4 | 6 | |
| Grade V | 5 | 5 | |
| Complications | |||
| Hypertension | 12 | 10 | |
| Diabetes | 9 | 13 | |
| Hyperlipidemia | 7 | 8 | |
| Previous stroke history | 13 | 12 |
Figure 1Image processing by the denoising algorithm.
Figure 2Images before and after processing with the AI algorithm.
Result data of the AI algorithm.
| AI denoising algorithm | SNR | SSIM |
|---|---|---|
| Before denoising | 28.99 | 0.43 |
| After denoising | 32.41 | 0.79 |
Figure 3MRI images of patients in the control group.
Figure 4MRI images of patients in the observation group.
Figure 5Comparison on UPDRS scores of patients in each group. Note: ∗ indicates that the difference was observable in contrast to the score before the treatment (P < 0.05); # suggests that there was an obvious difference compared to the control group (P < 0.05).
Figure 6Comparison on MoCA scores of patients in each group. Note: ∗ indicates that the difference was observable in contrast to the score before the treatment (P < 0.05); # suggests that there was an obvious difference compared to the control group (P < 0.05).
Figure 7Comparison on MMSE scores of patients in each group. Note: ∗ indicates that the difference was observable in contrast to the score before the treatment (P < 0.05); # suggests that there was an obvious difference compared to the control group (P < 0.05).
Incidences of dyskinesia and motor symptom fluctuations.
| Dyskinesia | Motor symptom fluctuations | |
|---|---|---|
| Control group | 35% (7/20) | 25% (5/20) |
| Observation group | 5% (1/20) | 0 (0/20) |
|
| <0.05 | <0.05 |