| Literature DB >> 35336842 |
Aklima Akter Lima1, M Firoz Mridha1, Sujoy Chandra Das1, Muhammad Mohsin Kabir1, Md Rashedul Islam2, Yutaka Watanobe3.
Abstract
Neurological disorders (NDs) are becoming more common, posing a concern to pregnant women, parents, healthy infants, and children. Neurological disorders arise in a wide variety of forms, each with its own set of origins, complications, and results. In recent years, the intricacy of brain functionalities has received a better understanding due to neuroimaging modalities, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetoencephalography (MEG), and positron emission tomography (PET), etc. With high-performance computational tools and various machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) methods, these modalities have discovered exciting possibilities for identifying and diagnosing neurological disorders. This study follows a computer-aided diagnosis methodology, leading to an overview of pre-processing and feature extraction techniques. The performance of existing ML and DL approaches for detecting NDs is critically reviewed and compared in this article. A comprehensive portion of this study also shows various modalities and disease-specified datasets that detect and records images, signals, and speeches, etc. Limited related works are also summarized on NDs, as this domain has significantly fewer works focused on disease and detection criteria. Some of the standard evaluation metrics are also presented in this study for better result analysis and comparison. This research has also been outlined in a consistent workflow. At the conclusion, a mandatory discussion section has been included to elaborate on open research challenges and directions for future work in this emerging field.Entities:
Keywords: challenges and opportunities; computer-aided diagnosis (CAD); deep learning (DL); detection and classification; machine learning (ML); neurological disorders (NDs)
Year: 2022 PMID: 35336842 PMCID: PMC8945195 DOI: 10.3390/biology11030469
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biology (Basel) ISSN: 2079-7737
Figure 1Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system architecture.
Neurological diseases-related recent surveys summary.
| Ref. | Purposes | Challenges |
|---|---|---|
| [ | This study discovered various deep learning algorithms for diagnosing epilepsy, stroke, PD, and AD on EEG- and MRI-based data | The application of deep learning techniques in diagnosing additional neuropsychiatric and neurological illnesses, aside from those stated, was not considered during the meta-analysis synthesis. |
| [ | This study reflects on segmentation, classification, and prediction of brain tumors using deep learning techniques | Some challenges include labeling images of tumors and label uncertainty directly in the loss function. |
| [ | This study addressed the performance and deficiencies of deep learning-based brain tumor classification (BTC) with various pre-processing, feature extraction, and classification techniques | Lack of large training dataset; class imbalance due to data augmentation. |
| [ | This study investigated automated epileptic seizure identification using DL approaches and modalities, such as neuroimaging, EEG, and MRI. | Inaccessibility of datasets with long registration times, and the datasets used to diagnose epileptic seizures have a finite registration period; conducting essential research on the subject of epileptic seizures. |
| [ | This study showed an overview of different DL and pre-processing strategies for detecting anomalies of, and the diagnosis and classification of AD, PD, and SZ with various open-access MRI data. | Predicting NLD in real-time from imaging data; developing a bias-free neuroimaging dataset; and adding adversarial noise to the neuroimages can reduce classification accuracy. |
| [ | This study utilizes raw embryo brain images to develop three deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) with distinct architectures | Not focused on common neurological diseases. |
Figure 2Workflow of neurological diseases detection and diagnosis study.
A tabulation of popular datasets of Alzheimer’s disease.
| Database Name | Healthy Control(HC)/Patient(P) | Modality | Available in (Last Access Date) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) | P: 47 HC: 34 | MRI | |
| Open Access Series of Imaging Studies (OASIS) 1 | S: 416 | MRI | |
| OASIS 2 | S: 150 | MRI | |
| OASIS 3 | S: 1098 | MRI & PET | |
| Chosun University Hospital (GUH) and Gwangju Optimal Dementia left (GODC) [ | HC: 10 P: 10 | EEG | NA |
A tabulation of popular datasets of Parkinson’s disease.
| Database Name | Healthy Controls(HSC)/ Patient(P) | Modality | Available in (Last Access Date) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sprial Dataset (UC Irvine Machine Learning Repository) | P: 62 HC: 15 | Handwriting | |
| Shanghai East Hospital of Tongji University (TCS Dataset) | P: 76 HC: 77 | Ultrasound Images | |
| Dandenong Neurology Centre, Melbourne, Australia [ | HC: 40 P: 41 | NA | NA |
| Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) | P: 498 HC: 203 | Images | |
| Parkinson’s Disease Classification Dataset | P: 188 | Speech recordings | |
| Parkinsons Dataset | P: 23 | Voice recording | |
| Parkinsons Telemonitoring Voice Dataset | P: 42 | Speech Recordings |
A tabulation of popular datasets of Cerebral palsy.
| Database Name | Healthy Control(HC)/ Patient(P) | Modality | Available in (Last Access Date) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dataset cerebral Palsy Pre- and Post-Botulinum Toxin A [ | P: 49 | NA |
A tabulation of popular datasets of brain tumor.
| Database Name | Healthy Control(HC)/ | Modality | Available in (Last Access Date) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brain MRI Images for Brain Tumor Detection | I: 253 | MRI | |
| Sample Brain Tumor Dataset | NA | MRI | |
| Brain Tumor Dataset | I: 3064 | MRI | |
| Br35H: Brain Tumor Detection 2020 | I: 3864 | MRI | |
| BraTS 2013 | P: 55 | MRI | |
| BraTS 2014 | NA | MRI | |
| BraTS 2015 | I: 274 | MRI | |
| BraTS 2017 | I: 285 | MRI | |
| BraTS 2018 | NA | MRI | |
| BraTS 2019 | NA | MRI |
A tabulation of popular datasets of epilepsy.
| Database Name | Healthy Control(HC)/ Patient(P)/Sample(S) | Modality | Available in (Last Access Date) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bonn Time Series Satabase | NA | EEG | |
| Bern–Barcelona | S: 10,240 | EEG | |
| Temple University EEG corpus | P: 10,874 | EEG | |
| Neurology and Sleep left, New Delhi EEG Database | S: 1024 | EEG | |
| Children Hospital Boston, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (CHB-MIT) [ | P: 22 | EEG | |
| Siena Scalp [ | P: 14 | EEG | |
| Single Electrode Data | HC: 15 P: 15 | EEG | |
| Epileptic Dataset | P: 6 | EEG | |
| A Dataset of Seizures Annotations | NA | EEG |
This is a dataset for symptoms and detection modalities for different neurological diseases.
| Disease Name | Symptoms | Detection |
|---|---|---|
| Parkinson’s disease | Tremor, sluggishness of movement, stiff muscles, uneven gait, and balance and coordination issues are symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. | Movement, speech, neuroimaging, handwriting patterns, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), optical coherence tomography (OCT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). |
| Dementia | Memory loss, difficulty with tasks, confusion, language issues, behavioral changes, and a loss of initiative are all symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease. | Listening to medical history, evaluating cognitive performance and mental state, neuropsychological testing, assessing daily activities, clinical laboratory tests, and brain imaging testing. |
| Alzheimer’s disease | Early stage: Memory lapses, such as forgetting standard terms or where everyday objects are. Middle stage: Misunderstand statements, become upset or furious, and act strange, such as refusing to bathe. Damage to nerve cells makes it difficult for people to express their thoughts and do ordinary tasks without help. Late stage: Lose awareness of their surroundings as well as recent experiences. Get into trouble walking, sitting, swallowing, and communicating, etc. Become more susceptible to infections, including pneumonia. | Raw neuroimaging modalities for combinatorial measures, such as sub-cortical volumes, gray matter densities, cortical thickness, brain glucose metabolism, and cerebral amyloid. |
| Multiple sclerosis | Fatigue, difficulty walking, stiffness, weakness, vision issues, dizziness, cognitive changes, emotional changes, and sadness, etc., can occur. | MRI scan, as radio waves and magnetic fields are used in it to assess the relative water content of bodily tissues to distinguish between normal and pathological tissues. |
| Cerebral Palsy | Delays in development, irregular muscular tone, and poor posture are all common. | X-ray computed tomography (CT scan) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are two brain imaging procedures. An electroencephalogram (EEG), genetic testing, and metabolic testing are also performed. |
| Brain Tumor | Some symptoms include headaches, seizures, visual and speech issues, memory loss, and loss of balance. | A brain tumor is usually diagnosed in three steps: An examination of the nervous system. Brain scans include CT (or CAT) scans, MRIs, angiograms, X-rays, and others. A biopsy is a procedure that is used to examine (tissue sample analysis). |
| Epileptic seizures | Uncontrollable jerking motions of the arms and legs, temporary disorientation, stiff muscles, consciousness or awareness loss, and fear and anxiety. | EEG, EMG, ECG, motion, or audio/video recording on the human head and body are used to monitor brain and muscle activities, heart rate, oxygen level, artificial sounds, or visual signatures. |
Figure 3Representation of common machine learning structure.
A tabulation of result analysis of SVM classifier.
| Ref. | Dataset | Evaluation Metrics | Methods | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | EEG Dataset [ | Epilepsy | Accuracy, Sensitivity, Specificity | Above 95% |
| [ | CP and Normal Children’s Gait Data [ | Cerebral Palsy | Accuracy, Sensitivity, Specificity | Above 82% |
| [ | 3D Brain MR Image | Multiple Sclerosis | Accuracy, Sensitivity, Specificity | 0.996 |
| [ | ADNI | Alzheimer Disease | Precision, Recall, | 96.63% |
| [ | Brain Tumor MR Images from Kaggle | Brain Tumor | Accuracy | 92% |
| [ | U/I | Dementia | Accuracy, Sensitivity, Specificity, F1-Score, Precision, MCC | 92.36% |
| [ | Parkinson’s Disease Handwriting Data (NewHandPD) | Parkinson’s Disease | Accuracy, Sensitivity, Specificity, F1-Score | 77.45% |
GMM classifier result analysis on various NDs.
| Ref. | Dataset | Evaluation Metrics | Methods | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Cancer-Imaging Archive | Brain Tumor | Accuracy, AUC | 94.11% |
| [ | Image from Longitudinal MS Lesion Segmentation Challenge | Multiple Sclerosis | Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), True Positive Rate (TPR), False Positive Rate (FPR), Volume Difference (VD) and Pearson’s r Coefficient | DSC: 0.62 |
| [ | Epileptic EEG dataset [ | Epilepsy | Accuracy | 99% |
| [ | Dataset from Department of Neurology in Cerrahpaşa
Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University [ | Parkinson’s Disease | Accuracy, MCC | 89.12% |
| [ | SPECT Datasets from Clinic of Nuclear Medicine, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg | Dementia | Accuracy | 93.39% |
KNN classifier result analysis on various NDs.
| Ref. | Dataset | Disease | Evaluation Metrics | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Collected from Clinical Courses | Multiple Sclerosis | F1-Score, Precision, Accuracy | F1: 81% |
| [ | PD Dataset [ | Parkinson’s Disease | Sensitivity, Specificity, Accuracy | 96.07% |
| [ | EEG Dataset | Epilepsy | Sensitivity, Specificity, Accuracy | Above 95% |
| [ | Hyperspectral Brain Cancer Image Database | Brain Tumor | Euclidean & Manhattan distance | U/I |
GAN classifier result analysis on various NDs.
| Ref. | Dataset | Disease | Evaluation Metrics | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | ADNI Dataset | Alzheimer’s Disease | Accuracy, Recall, Precision, F-2 | 94.1% |
| [ | ADNI & NIFD | Alzheimer’s Disease | Accuracy, Sensitivity | 87.80% |
| [ | CHB-MIT, Freiburg Hospital & EPILEPSIAE Dataset | Epileptic Seizure | AUC | above 80% |
| [ | UCI Dataset [ | Parkinson’s Disease | Accuracy, Sentivity, Specificity | 91.25% |
RF classifier result analysis on various NDs.
| Ref. | Dataset | Disease | Evaluation Metrics | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Parkinson’s Disease Dataset [ | Parkinson’s Disease | Accuracy, Kappa, Precision, Recall, AUC, F-measure | 94.89% |
| [ | Collected from Cerebrum Web Informational Index | Brain Tumor | Sensitivity, Specificity, Accuracy | 98.37% |
ANN classifier result analysis on various NDs.
| Ref. | Dataset | Disease | Evaluation Metrics | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Clinical & HRV data | Cerebral Palsy | AUC | >90% |
| [ | Independent Samples | Multiple Sclerosis | ROC curve | 94.5% |
| [ | Population-Based Nested Case-Control Study Sesign | Alzheimer’s Disease | Sensitivity, Specificity, Accuracy, AUC | 92.13% |
| [ | University of California at Irvine (UCI) Machine Learning Repository | Parkinson’s Disease | Accuracy, Sensitivity, Specificity, MCC | 86.47% |
Figure 4Representation of common deep neural network structure.
CNN classifier result analysis on various NDs.
| Ref. | Dataset | Disease | Evaluation Metrics | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | MR Image Dataset [ | Seizure Detection | Sensitivity, Specificity, Accuracy, Precision, F-Score | 96.05% |
| [ | MRI Dataset from McGill University | Cerebral Palsy | Accuracy | 88.6% |
| [ | Parkinson’s Disease Spiral Drawings Using Digitized Graphics Tablet Dataset [ | Parkinson’s Disease | Accuracy, AUC, F1-Score | 96.5% |
| [ | OASIS | Alzheimer’s Disease | Accuracy | 78.02% |
RNN classifier result analysis on various NDs.
| Ref. | Dataset | Evaluation Metrics | Methods | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Daphnet Dataset | Parkinson’s Disease | AUC, Specificity, Sensitivity | Avg 97% |
| [ | ADNI | Alzheimer’s Disease | Accuracy, Specificity, Sensitivity | 89.69% |
LSTM classifier result analysis on various NDs.
| Ref. | Dataset | Evaluation Metrics | Methods | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | VGRF Dataset [ | Parkinson’s Disease | Accuracy, Specificity, Sensitivity, MCC, PVV, F-Score | 98.60% |
| [ | Molecular Brain Neoplasia Data (REMBRANDT) [ | Brain Tumor | Accuracy | 86.98% |
| [ | ADNI | Alzheimer’s Disease | Accuracy | Above 85% |
| [ | MINI-RGBD, RVI-25 | Accuracy, Specifity, Sensitivity, PR, F1-Score | Above 91% |
ELM classifier result analysis on various NDs.
| Ref. | Dataset | Disease | Evaluation Metrics | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | EEG Dataset [ | Epilepsy | Accuracy, Sensitivity, Specificity | 90% |
| [ | ADNI Dataset | Alzheimer’s Disease | Accuracy, Sensitivity, Specificity | 76.9% |
| [ | Epileptic EEG Dataset [ | Epilepsy | F-Measure, G-Means, AUC | 82.77% |
| [ | Brain Tumor MRI Image Dataset [ | Brain Tumor | Accuracy | 94.23% |
| [ | Parkinson’s Dataset [ | Parkinson’s Disease | Accuracy, Sensitivity, Specificity, (AUC) | 96.47% |
| [ | Collected Data from the Vasei Hospital in Sabzevar | Multiple Sclerosis | Accuracy, Sensitivity, Specificity | 97% |
GRU classifier result analysis on various NDs.
| Ref. | Dataset | Evaluation Metrics | Methods | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | ADNI Dataset | Alzheimer’s Disease | Accuracy, Sensitivity, Specificity | 97.03% |
| [ | TUH EEG Seizure Corpus (TUSZ) | Epilepsy | Sensitivity, Specificity | 96.9% |
| [ | ADNI | Alzheimer’s Disease | Accuracy | 0.709% |
DBM classifier result analysis on various NDs.
| Ref. | Dataset | Disease | Evaluation Metrics | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | EEG Database | Seizure Detection | F-Measure, Accuracy, TPR | 99.5% |
| [ | Hand-Drawn Images Dataset | Parkinson’s Disease | F1-Score, Accuracy | 65.62% |
DBN classifier result analysis on various NDs.
| Ref. | Dataset | Disease | Evaluation Metrics | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | BraTS 2015 | Brain Tumors | Accuracy, Recall, Precision 91.6% | |
| [ | EEG Wave Files | Epilepsy Detection | Accuracy | >90% |
| [ | 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET images | Alzheimer Disease | Accuracy, Sensitivity, Specificity | 86.6% |
| [ | PD Telemonitoring Dataset [ | Parkinson’s Disease | Accuracy | 94% |
Advantages and disadvantages of classification algorithms.
| Classifier Name | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| SVM | SVM is memory efficient and works well in high-dimensional domains and situations there is clear separation between classes. | The SVM technique is unsuitable for big datasets and does not perform well when the dataset has a high level of noise. |
| GMM | It does not need the presence of a subpopulation of data points. It enables the model to automatically learn the subpopulations. | There are numerous parameters to fit, and getting decent results generally necessitates a lot of data and several iterations. |
| KNN | KNN is simple to install and fast because it stores the training dataset and only learns from it when making real-time predictions. | It struggles with huge datasets, high dimensions, and data that is noisy. |
| GAN | It provides the sharpest images because of their adversarial training, and can be trained using solely backpropagation. | It is hard to train as it is non-convergence diminished gradient. |
| Random Forest | It can solve classification and regression issues, is relatively steady, and is less susceptible to noise. | It has complexity and long training period. |
| ANN | It has the ability to store information throughout the whole network and function with partial knowledge while remaining fault tolerant. | It is hardware dependent and has an inexplicable network behavior. |
| CNN | It is quite accurate in picture identification and recognizes the crucial aspects automatically without human intervention. | It requires a vast amount of training data and does not encode the location or orientation of the object. |
| RNN | An RNN remembers all information throughout time and is useful for a time series prediction. | Training an RNN is a tough undertaking that includes gradient vanishing and explosion issues. |
| LSTM | It offers a wide range of parameters, such as learning rates, input and output biases, and so on. | It takes longer to train, requires more memory, and is prone to overfitting. |
| GRU | It requires less computational power. | It has slow convergence rate and low learning efficiency. |
| DBN | DBN has the ability to learn features, which is accomplished by layer-by-layer learning techniques. | It does not take into account the two-dimen sional structure of the supplied image. |
| PNN | It generates reliable predicted target probability scores while being somewhat insensitive to outliers. | The model requires extra memory space to be stored. |
| DBM | It is both expressive and computationally efficient, allowing it to encode any distribution. | Takes a lot of time to calculate probabilities and adjust weight. |