Cargando…

P022 Sleep Biomarker Phenotyping of Neurodegenerative Disorders Using Artificial Intelligence – A Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION: In this pilot study, we explored sleep biomarker risk probabilities for different neurodegenerative disorder (NDD) phenotypes across a spectrum of NDD patients, compared with controls. METHODS: We analyzed a cohort of patients with different NDD phenotypes who underwent in-home recordi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Levendowski, D, Tsuang, D, Neylan, T, Walsh, C, Lee-Iannotti, J, Berka, C, Mazeika, G, Boeve, B, St. Louis, E
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10591739/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sleepadvances/zpad035.107
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: In this pilot study, we explored sleep biomarker risk probabilities for different neurodegenerative disorder (NDD) phenotypes across a spectrum of NDD patients, compared with controls. METHODS: We analyzed a cohort of patients with different NDD phenotypes who underwent in-home recordings with Sleep Profiler, including Lewy body disease (LBD=20), Alzheimer’s disease dementia (AD=29), and isolated REM sleep behavior disorder (iRBD=19). Controls with an MMSE>28 (CG=61) and patients with Parkinson disease (PD=16) and mild-cognitive-impairment (MCI=41) also participated. We developed a machine-learning classifier that assigned NDD probabilities for LBD, AD, iRBD, and CG. The input variables included: time-REM, non-REM hypertonia, autonomic-activation index, spindle-duration, atypical-N3, time-supine, sleep-efficiency, relative-theta, and theta/alpha. Probabilities >50% were assigned “likely”, and for CG>=50% and a NDD group probability 20-50%, the assignment was normal “plus”. Probability assignments were then made for the NDD and CG groups, then further applied to the PD and MCI patient groups. RESULTS: The CG group participants were assigned Normal-Likely=74%, Normal+AD=11%, Normal+iRBD=5%, iRBD-Likely=5%, and AD-Likely=5%. LBD patient distributions were LBD-Likely=70%, iRBD-Likely=5%, AD-Likely=5%, Normal+LBD=5%, Normal+iRBD=5%, Normal+AD=5%, and Normal-Likely=5%. AD group distributions were AD-Likely=71%, LBD-Likely=4%, Normal+AD=14%, Normal+iRBD=4%, Normal-Likely=7%. iRBD patients were characterized with iRBD-Likely=37%, LBD-Likely=5%, AD-Likely=5%, Normal+iRBD=27%, Normal-Likely=26%. PD patients were assigned iRBD-Likely=29%, LBD-likely=14%, AD-Likely=14%, Normal+iRBD=21%, Normal+AD=7%, Normal-Likely=14%. MCI distributions were AD-Likely=45%, LBD-Likely=8%, iRBD-Likely=5%, Normal+AD=21%, Normal-Likely=13%. CONCLUSIONS: For LBD, AD and CG groups, correct risk assignments were >70% while gross misclassifications were <10%. Classification patterns for PD, MCI and iRBD were disbursed in a manner consistent with the range of severities expected in each group.