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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |