Cargando…

Gait video-based prediction of unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale score: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease (PD) and evaluation of its symptoms require in-person clinical examination. Remote evaluation of PD symptoms is desirable, especially during a pandemic such as the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. One potential method to remotely evaluate PD motor i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Eguchi, Katsuki, Takigawa, Ichigaku, Shirai, Shinichi, Takahashi-Iwata, Ikuko, Matsushima, Masaaki, Kano, Takahiro, Yaguchi, Hiroaki, Yabe, Ichiro
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10552271/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37798685
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12883-023-03385-2
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease (PD) and evaluation of its symptoms require in-person clinical examination. Remote evaluation of PD symptoms is desirable, especially during a pandemic such as the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. One potential method to remotely evaluate PD motor impairments is video-based analysis. In this study, we aimed to assess the feasibility of predicting the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score from gait videos using a convolutional neural network (CNN) model. METHODS: We retrospectively obtained 737 consecutive gait videos of 74 patients with PD and their corresponding neurologist-rated UPDRS scores. We utilized a CNN model for predicting the total UPDRS part III score and four subscores of axial symptoms (items 27, 28, 29, and 30), bradykinesia (items 23, 24, 25, 26, and 31), rigidity (item 22) and tremor (items 20 and 21). We trained the model on 80% of the gait videos and used 10% of the videos as a validation dataset. We evaluated the predictive performance of the trained model by comparing the model-predicted score with the neurologist-rated score for the remaining 10% of videos (test dataset). We calculated the coefficient of determination (R(2)) between those scores to evaluate the model’s goodness of fit. RESULTS: In the test dataset, the R(2) values between the model-predicted and neurologist-rated values for the total UPDRS part III score and subscores of axial symptoms, bradykinesia, rigidity, and tremor were 0.59, 0.77, 0.56, 0.46, and 0.0, respectively. The performance was relatively low for videos from patients with severe symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the low predictive performance of the model for the total UPDRS part III score, it demonstrated relatively high performance in predicting subscores of axial symptoms. The model approximately predicted the total UPDRS part III scores of patients with moderate symptoms, but the performance was low for patients with severe symptoms owing to limited data. A larger dataset is needed to improve the model’s performance in clinical settings. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12883-023-03385-2.