| Literature DB >> 35161551 |
Hsin Hsiu1,2, Shun-Ku Lin3,4,5, Wan-Ling Weng1, Chaw-Mew Hung6, Che-Kai Chang1, Chia-Chien Lee1, Chao-Tsung Chen4,5,7.
Abstract
Early identification of cognitive impairment would allow affected patients to receive care at earlier stage. Changes in the arterial stiffness have been identified as a prominent pathological feature of dementia. This study aimed to verify if applying machine-learning analysis to spectral indices of the arterial pulse waveform can be used to discriminate different cognitive conditions of community subjects. 3-min Radial arterial blood pressure waveform (BPW) signals were measured noninvasively in 123 subjects. Eight machine-learning algorithms were used to evaluate the following 4 pulse indices for 10 harmonics (total 40 BPW spectral indices): amplitude proportion and its coefficient of variation; phase angle and its standard deviation. Significant differences were noted in the spectral pulse indices between Alzheimer's-disease patients and control subjects. Using them as training data (AUC = 70.32% by threefold cross-validation), a significant correlation (R2 = 0.36) was found between the prediction probability of the test data (comprising community subjects at two sites) and the Mini-Mental-State-Examination score. This finding illustrates possible physiological connection between arterial pulse transmission and cognitive function. The present findings from pulse-wave and machine-learning analyses may be useful for discriminating cognitive condition, and hence in the development of a user-friendly, noninvasive, and rapid method for the early screening of dementia.Entities:
Keywords: Mini-Mental State Examination; community subjects; dementia; machine learning; pulse; spectral analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35161551 PMCID: PMC8838619 DOI: 10.3390/s22030806
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Typical measured pulse waveforms. (a) AD patient; (b) Control; (c) Community Site 1; (d) Community Site 2; (e) Young.
Figure 2Procedure for information processing.
Parameters of the machine-learning models.
| Machine-Learning Methods | Model Parameters |
|---|---|
| SVM | C = 1; kernel: rbf; gamma: auto; tol = 0.0001; max_iter = −1; class_weight: none |
| MLP | hidden_layer_sizes = 100; solver: adam; alpha = 0.0001; batch_size: auto; max_iter = 200; learning_rate_int = 0.001 |
| GNB | Priors: none |
| DT | Criterion: gini; Splitter: best; max_depth: none; min_samples_split = 2; min_samples_leaf = 1; min_weight_fraction_leaf = 0; max_features: none; max_leaf_nodes: none; min_impurity_split = 0.0 |
| RF | n_estimators = 100; criterion: gini; max_depth: none; min_samples_split = 2; min_samples_leaf = 1; min_weight_fraction_leaf = 0; max_features: none; max_leaf_nodes: none |
| LR | Penalty: l2; Solver: lbfgs; multi_class: auto; class_weight: none |
| LDA | Solver: svd; Shrinkage: none; Priors: none |
| KNN | n_neighbors = 5; weights: uniform; algorithm: auto; n_jobs: none; p: none |
Characteristics of subjects.
|
| ||||||
| Mild dementia | Moderate dementia | Heavy dementia | ||||
| gender | male | female | male | female | male | female |
| Subject number | 4 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 10 |
| subject number | 10 | 12 | 16 | |||
| Total subject number | 38 | |||||
| Age | 71.33 ± 6.5 | 73.86 ± 7.86 | 67 ± 19 | 77.42 ± 11.51 | 74.33 ± 9.29 | 77.4 ± 7.02 |
| Age(male + female) | 73.1 ± 7.21 | 73.08 ± 15.27 | 76.25 ± 7.79 | |||
| Age (all) | 74.42 ± 10.44 | |||||
| HR | 68 ± 11.53 | 70.14 ± 11.86 | 67 ± 3.53 | 67.85 ± 16.24 | 66.4 ± 13.92 | 67.6 ± 9.64 |
| HR (male + female) | 69.5 ± 11.57 | 67.5 ± 12.19 | 68.87 ± 11.1 | |||
| HR (all) | 68.8 ± 11.18 | |||||
|
| ||||||
| MMSE > 24 | Mild dementia | Moderate dementia | ||||
| gender | male | female | male | female | male | female |
| Subject number | 8 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 5 | 0 |
| subject number | 8 | 7 | 5 | |||
| Total subject number | 20 | |||||
| Age | 81.09 ± 10.31 | 83.43± 9.02 | 77.08 ± 5.36 | 0 | ||
| Age(male + female) | 81 ± 10.31 | 83± 9.02 | 86.4 ± 7.92 | |||
| Age (all) | 83.05 ± 9.10 | |||||
| HR | 67.25 ± 15.26 | 68.29 ± 4.72 | 62.20 ± 5.22 | |||
| HR (male + female) | 67.25 ± 15.26 | 68.29 ± 4.72 | 62.20 ± 5.22 | |||
| HR (all) | 66.35 ± 10.43 | |||||
|
| ||||||
| MMSE > 24 | Mild dementia | Moderate dementia | ||||
| gender | male | female | male | female | male | female |
| Subject number | 2 | 8 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 0 |
| subject number | 10 | 7 | 2 | |||
| Total subject number | 19 | |||||
| Age | 71.53 ± 0.71 | 75.64± 6.97 | 76.23 | 81.26 ± 4.51 | 84.46 ± 6.36 | |
| Age(male + female) | 74.3 ± 6.33 | 80.71± 4.61 | 84.46 ± 6.36 | |||
| Age (all) | 78.25 ± 6.88 | |||||
| HR | 79.50 ± 12.02 | 68.38 ± 6.86 | 61.00 | 67.00 ± 8.00 | 65.50 ± 6.36 | |
| HR (male + female) | 70.6 ± 8.64 | 66.14 ± 7.65 | 65.50 ± 6.36 | |||
| HR (all) | 68.42 ± 8.04 | |||||
|
|
| |||||
| gender | male | female | male | female | ||
| Subject number | 11 | 27 | 7 | 1 | ||
| Total subject number | 38 | 8 | ||||
| Age | 74.24 ± 3.26 | 72.08 ± 4.94 | 23.85 ± 1.46 | 23 | ||
| Age (all) | 72.71 ± 4.58 | 23.75 ± 1.38 | ||||
| HR | 78.09 ± 9.11 | 79.88 ± 7.27 | 66.00 ± 5.94 | 64.00 | ||
| HR (all) | 79.36 ± 7.76 | 65.75 ± 5.54 | ||||
Figure 3Comparisons of BPW harmonic indices of AD patients, control, community (Sites A and B), and young subjects: (a) C, (b) CV, (c) P, and (d) P_SD. Data are mean and standard-deviation values. C6–C10 values have been multiplied by 10 to make the differences clearer. p values are listed in Table 3.
Probability values for comparisons of BPW harmonic indices (C, CV, P, and P_SD) between AD patients, controls, and community subjects. Significant differences were underlined.
|
|
Results of the machine-learning analyses comparing BPW indices between AD patients and Control. Results are presented for the threefold cross-validation.
| Accuracy (%) | SVM | MLP | GNB | DT | RF | LR | LDA | KNN |
| 1 | 70.61 | 72.50 | 61.34 | 63.57 | 64.26 | 71.47 | 76.80 | 64.94 |
| 2 | 56.35 | 71.64 | 55.84 | 64.77 | 69.41 | 62.37 | 71.64 | 62.37 |
| 3 | 60.30 | 66.83 | 60.48 | 59.79 | 63.40 | 62.71 | 56.87 | 63.91 |
| average | 62.42 | 70.32 | 59.22 | 62.71 | 65.69 | 65.52 | 68.44 | 63.74 |
| Sensitivity | SVM | MLP | GNB | DT | RF | LR | LDA | KNN |
| 1 | 0.66 | 0.66 | 0.38 | 0.61 | 0.72 | 0.61 | 0.64 | 0.60 |
| 2 | 0.46 | 0.63 | 0.21 | 0.62 | 0.71 | 0.47 | 0.61 | 0.51 |
| 3 | 0.78 | 0.76 | 0.75 | 0.81 | 0.91 | 0.77 | 0.68 | 0.78 |
| average | 0.63 | 0.68 | 0.45 | 0.68 | 0.78 | 0.62 | 0.64 | 0.63 |
| Specificity | SVM | MLP | GNB | DT | RF | LR | LDA | KNN |
| 1 | 0.74 | 0.78 | 0.84 | 0.65 | 0.56 | 0.81 | 0.89 | 0.69 |
| 2 | 0.66 | 0.80 | 0.90 | 0.66 | 0.67 | 0.77 | 0.81 | 0.73 |
| 3 | 0.41 | 0.57 | 0.45 | 0.37 | 0.35 | 0.48 | 0.45 | 0.49 |
| average | 0.60 | 0.72 | 0.73 | 0.56 | 0.53 | 0.69 | 0.72 | 0.64 |
| AUC | SVM | MLP | GNB | DT | RF | LR | LDA | KNN |
| 1 | 0.70 | 0.72 | 0.61 | 0.63 | 0.64 | 0.71 | 0.76 | 0.64 |
| 2 | 0.56 | 0.71 | 0.55 | 0.64 | 0.69 | 0.62 | 0.71 | 0.62 |
| 3 | 0.60 | 0.66 | 0.60 | 0.59 | 0.63 | 0.62 | 0.56 | 0.63 |
| average | 0.62 | 0.70 | 0.59 | 0.62 | 0.65 | 0.65 | 0.68 | 0.63 |
Figure 4MLP analysis results for comparisons of BPW indices between AD patients and Group Control. Training and validation accuracy plots, AUC, and contradiction matrix are presented for the threefold cross-validation. The mean accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 70.32%, 0.68, 0.72, and 0.70, respectively. “1” indicates AD patients and “0” indicates Control. (a) 1st part; (b) 2nd part; (c) 3rd part of the threefold cross-validation.
Figure 5Correlation between the prediction probability and MMSE score. Group AD and Control were used as training data. Community subjects at Sites A and B, and Group Young were used as test subjects. (a), There was a significant negative correlation for the testing community subjects (R2 = 0.36, p < 0.05 by F-test). (b), When the young group was excluded, there was still a significant negative correlation (R2 = 0.31, p < 0.05 by F-test).