Cargando…

Opportunities and challenges of supervised machine learning for the classification of motor evoked potentials according to muscles

BACKGROUND: Even for an experienced neurophysiologist, it is challenging to look at a single graph of an unlabeled motor evoked potential (MEP) and identify the corresponding muscle. We demonstrate that supervised machine learning (ML) can successfully perform this task. METHODS: Intraoperative MEP...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wermelinger, Jonathan, Parduzi, Qendresa, Sariyar, Murat, Raabe, Andreas, Schneider, Ulf C., Seidel, Kathleen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10544622/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37784044
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-023-02276-3
_version_ 1785114541010452480
author Wermelinger, Jonathan
Parduzi, Qendresa
Sariyar, Murat
Raabe, Andreas
Schneider, Ulf C.
Seidel, Kathleen
author_facet Wermelinger, Jonathan
Parduzi, Qendresa
Sariyar, Murat
Raabe, Andreas
Schneider, Ulf C.
Seidel, Kathleen
author_sort Wermelinger, Jonathan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Even for an experienced neurophysiologist, it is challenging to look at a single graph of an unlabeled motor evoked potential (MEP) and identify the corresponding muscle. We demonstrate that supervised machine learning (ML) can successfully perform this task. METHODS: Intraoperative MEP data from supratentorial surgery on 36 patients was included for the classification task with 4 muscles: Extensor digitorum (EXT), abductor pollicis brevis (APB), tibialis anterior (TA) and abductor hallucis (AH). Three different supervised ML classifiers (random forest (RF), k-nearest neighbors (kNN) and logistic regression (LogReg)) were trained and tested on either raw or compressed data. Patient data was classified considering either all 4 muscles simultaneously, 2 muscles within the same extremity (EXT versus APB), or 2 muscles from different extremities (EXT versus TA). RESULTS: In all cases, RF classifiers performed best and kNN second best. The highest performances were achieved on raw data (4 muscles 83%, EXT versus APB 89%, EXT versus TA 97% accuracy). CONCLUSIONS: Standard ML methods show surprisingly high performance on a classification task with intraoperative MEP signals. This study illustrates the power and challenges of standard ML algorithms when handling intraoperative signals and may lead to intraoperative safety improvements. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-023-02276-3.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10544622
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105446222023-10-03 Opportunities and challenges of supervised machine learning for the classification of motor evoked potentials according to muscles Wermelinger, Jonathan Parduzi, Qendresa Sariyar, Murat Raabe, Andreas Schneider, Ulf C. Seidel, Kathleen BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Research BACKGROUND: Even for an experienced neurophysiologist, it is challenging to look at a single graph of an unlabeled motor evoked potential (MEP) and identify the corresponding muscle. We demonstrate that supervised machine learning (ML) can successfully perform this task. METHODS: Intraoperative MEP data from supratentorial surgery on 36 patients was included for the classification task with 4 muscles: Extensor digitorum (EXT), abductor pollicis brevis (APB), tibialis anterior (TA) and abductor hallucis (AH). Three different supervised ML classifiers (random forest (RF), k-nearest neighbors (kNN) and logistic regression (LogReg)) were trained and tested on either raw or compressed data. Patient data was classified considering either all 4 muscles simultaneously, 2 muscles within the same extremity (EXT versus APB), or 2 muscles from different extremities (EXT versus TA). RESULTS: In all cases, RF classifiers performed best and kNN second best. The highest performances were achieved on raw data (4 muscles 83%, EXT versus APB 89%, EXT versus TA 97% accuracy). CONCLUSIONS: Standard ML methods show surprisingly high performance on a classification task with intraoperative MEP signals. This study illustrates the power and challenges of standard ML algorithms when handling intraoperative signals and may lead to intraoperative safety improvements. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-023-02276-3. BioMed Central 2023-10-02 /pmc/articles/PMC10544622/ /pubmed/37784044 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-023-02276-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Wermelinger, Jonathan
Parduzi, Qendresa
Sariyar, Murat
Raabe, Andreas
Schneider, Ulf C.
Seidel, Kathleen
Opportunities and challenges of supervised machine learning for the classification of motor evoked potentials according to muscles
title Opportunities and challenges of supervised machine learning for the classification of motor evoked potentials according to muscles
title_full Opportunities and challenges of supervised machine learning for the classification of motor evoked potentials according to muscles
title_fullStr Opportunities and challenges of supervised machine learning for the classification of motor evoked potentials according to muscles
title_full_unstemmed Opportunities and challenges of supervised machine learning for the classification of motor evoked potentials according to muscles
title_short Opportunities and challenges of supervised machine learning for the classification of motor evoked potentials according to muscles
title_sort opportunities and challenges of supervised machine learning for the classification of motor evoked potentials according to muscles
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10544622/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37784044
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-023-02276-3
work_keys_str_mv AT wermelingerjonathan opportunitiesandchallengesofsupervisedmachinelearningfortheclassificationofmotorevokedpotentialsaccordingtomuscles
AT parduziqendresa opportunitiesandchallengesofsupervisedmachinelearningfortheclassificationofmotorevokedpotentialsaccordingtomuscles
AT sariyarmurat opportunitiesandchallengesofsupervisedmachinelearningfortheclassificationofmotorevokedpotentialsaccordingtomuscles
AT raabeandreas opportunitiesandchallengesofsupervisedmachinelearningfortheclassificationofmotorevokedpotentialsaccordingtomuscles
AT schneiderulfc opportunitiesandchallengesofsupervisedmachinelearningfortheclassificationofmotorevokedpotentialsaccordingtomuscles
AT seidelkathleen opportunitiesandchallengesofsupervisedmachinelearningfortheclassificationofmotorevokedpotentialsaccordingtomuscles