Johann Faouzi1, Samir Bekadar2, Fanny Artaud3, Alexis Elbaz3, Graziella Mangone2, Olivier Colliot1, Jean-Christophe Corvol2. 1. Sorbonne Université, Institut du Cerveau - Paris Brain Institute - ICM, CNRS, Inria, Inserm, AP-HPHôpital de la Pitié Salpêtriére F-75013 Paris France. 2. Department of NeurologyParis Brain Institute, Inserm, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Centre d'Investigation Clinique Neurosciences, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière F-75013 Paris France. 3. Université Paris-Saclay, UVSQ, Université Paris-Sud, Inserm, Gustave Roussy, Équipe "Exposome et Hérédité", CESP 94807 Villejuif France.
Abstract
Goal: Impulse control disorders (ICDs) are frequent non-motor symptoms occurring during the course of Parkinson's disease (PD). The objective of this study was to estimate the predictability of the future occurrence of these disorders using longitudinal data, the first study using cross-validation and replication in an independent cohort. Methods: We used data from two longitudinal PD cohorts (training set: PPMI, Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative; test set: DIGPD, Drug Interaction With Genes in Parkinson's Disease). We included 380 PD subjects from PPMI and 388 PD subjects from DIGPD, with at least two visits and with clinical and genetic data available, in our analyses. We trained three logistic regressions and a recurrent neural network to predict ICDs at the next visit using clinical risk factors and genetic variants previously associated with ICDs. We quantified performance using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC) and average precision. We compared these models to a trivial model predicting ICDs at the next visit with the status at the most recent visit. Results: The recurrent neural network (PPMI: 0.85 [0.80 - 0.90], DIGPD: 0.802 [0.78 - 0.83]) was the only model to be significantly better than the trivial model (PPMI: ROC AUC = 0.75 [0.69 - 0.81]; DIGPD: 0.78 [0.75 - 0.80]) on both cohorts. We showed that ICDs in PD can be predicted with better accuracy with a recurrent neural network model than a trivial model. The improvement in terms of ROC AUC was higher on PPMI than on DIGPD data, but not clinically relevant in both cohorts. Conclusions: Our results indicate that machine learning methods are potentially useful for predicting ICDs, but further works are required to reach clinical relevance.
Goal: Impulse control disorders (ICDs) are frequent non-motor symptoms occurring during the course of Parkinson's disease (PD). The objective of this study was to estimate the predictability of the future occurrence of these disorders using longitudinal data, the first study using cross-validation and replication in an independent cohort. Methods: We used data from two longitudinal PD cohorts (training set: PPMI, Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative; test set: DIGPD, Drug Interaction With Genes in Parkinson's Disease). We included 380 PD subjects from PPMI and 388 PD subjects from DIGPD, with at least two visits and with clinical and genetic data available, in our analyses. We trained three logistic regressions and a recurrent neural network to predict ICDs at the next visit using clinical risk factors and genetic variants previously associated with ICDs. We quantified performance using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC) and average precision. We compared these models to a trivial model predicting ICDs at the next visit with the status at the most recent visit. Results: The recurrent neural network (PPMI: 0.85 [0.80 - 0.90], DIGPD: 0.802 [0.78 - 0.83]) was the only model to be significantly better than the trivial model (PPMI: ROC AUC = 0.75 [0.69 - 0.81]; DIGPD: 0.78 [0.75 - 0.80]) on both cohorts. We showed that ICDs in PD can be predicted with better accuracy with a recurrent neural network model than a trivial model. The improvement in terms of ROC AUC was higher on PPMI than on DIGPD data, but not clinically relevant in both cohorts. Conclusions: Our results indicate that machine learning methods are potentially useful for predicting ICDs, but further works are required to reach clinical relevance.
Entities:
Keywords:
Impulse control disorders; Parkinson’s disease; machine learning; precision medicine
Authors: Valerie Voon; Mandy Sohr; Anthony E Lang; Marc N Potenza; Andrew D Siderowf; Jacqueline Whetteckey; Daniel Weintraub; Glen R Wunderlich; Mark Stacy Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2011-03-17 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Sayantan Das; Lukas Forer; Sebastian Schönherr; Carlo Sidore; Adam E Locke; Alan Kwong; Scott I Vrieze; Emily Y Chew; Shawn Levy; Matt McGue; David Schlessinger; Dwight Stambolian; Po-Ru Loh; William G Iacono; Anand Swaroop; Laura J Scott; Francesco Cucca; Florian Kronenberg; Michael Boehnke; Gonçalo R Abecasis; Christian Fuchsberger Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2016-08-29 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Mike A Nalls; Jose Bras; Dena G Hernandez; Margaux F Keller; Elisa Majounie; Alan E Renton; Mohamad Saad; Iris Jansen; Rita Guerreiro; Steven Lubbe; Vincent Plagnol; J Raphael Gibbs; Claudia Schulte; Nathan Pankratz; Margaret Sutherland; Lars Bertram; Christina M Lill; Anita L DeStefano; Tatiana Faroud; Nicholas Eriksson; Joyce Y Tung; Connor Edsall; Noah Nichols; Janet Brooks; Sampath Arepalli; Hannah Pliner; Chris Letson; Peter Heutink; Maria Martinez; Thomas Gasser; Bryan J Traynor; Nick Wood; John Hardy; Andrew B Singleton Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2014-08-04 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Pauli Virtanen; Ralf Gommers; Travis E Oliphant; Matt Haberland; Tyler Reddy; David Cournapeau; Evgeni Burovski; Pearu Peterson; Warren Weckesser; Jonathan Bright; Stéfan J van der Walt; Matthew Brett; Joshua Wilson; K Jarrod Millman; Nikolay Mayorov; Andrew R J Nelson; Eric Jones; Robert Kern; Eric Larson; C J Carey; İlhan Polat; Yu Feng; Eric W Moore; Jake VanderPlas; Denis Laxalde; Josef Perktold; Robert Cimrman; Ian Henriksen; E A Quintero; Charles R Harris; Anne M Archibald; Antônio H Ribeiro; Fabian Pedregosa; Paul van Mulbregt Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 28.547