Cargando…

Comparison of Walking Protocols and Gait Assessment Systems for Machine Learning-Based Classification of Parkinson’s Disease

Early diagnosis of Parkinson’s diseases (PD) is challenging; applying machine learning (ML) models to gait characteristics may support the classification process. Comparing performance of ML models used in various studies can be problematic due to different walking protocols and gait assessment syst...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rehman, Rana Zia Ur, Del Din, Silvia, Shi, Jian Qing, Galna, Brook, Lord, Sue, Yarnall, Alison J., Guan, Yu, Rochester, Lynn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6960714/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31817393
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s19245363
_version_ 1783487834376634368
author Rehman, Rana Zia Ur
Del Din, Silvia
Shi, Jian Qing
Galna, Brook
Lord, Sue
Yarnall, Alison J.
Guan, Yu
Rochester, Lynn
author_facet Rehman, Rana Zia Ur
Del Din, Silvia
Shi, Jian Qing
Galna, Brook
Lord, Sue
Yarnall, Alison J.
Guan, Yu
Rochester, Lynn
author_sort Rehman, Rana Zia Ur
collection PubMed
description Early diagnosis of Parkinson’s diseases (PD) is challenging; applying machine learning (ML) models to gait characteristics may support the classification process. Comparing performance of ML models used in various studies can be problematic due to different walking protocols and gait assessment systems. The objective of this study was to compare the impact of walking protocols and gait assessment systems on the performance of a support vector machine (SVM) and random forest (RF) for classification of PD. 93 PD and 103 controls performed two walking protocols at their normal pace: (i) four times along a 10 m walkway (intermittent walk-IW), (ii) walking for 2 minutes on a 25 m oval circuit (continuous walk-CW). 14 gait characteristics were extracted from two different systems (an instrumented walkway—GAITRite; and an accelerometer attached at the lower back—Axivity). SVM and RF were trained on normalized data (accounting for step velocity, gender, age and BMI) and evaluated using 10-fold cross validation with area under the curve (AUC). Overall performance was higher for both systems during CW compared to IW. SVM performed better than RF. With SVM, during CW Axivity significantly outperformed GAITRite (AUC: 87.83 ± 7.81% vs. 80.49 ± 9.85%); during IW systems performed similarly. These findings suggest that choice of testing protocol and sensing system may have a direct impact on ML PD classification results and highlight the need for standardization for wide scale implementation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6960714
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69607142020-01-23 Comparison of Walking Protocols and Gait Assessment Systems for Machine Learning-Based Classification of Parkinson’s Disease Rehman, Rana Zia Ur Del Din, Silvia Shi, Jian Qing Galna, Brook Lord, Sue Yarnall, Alison J. Guan, Yu Rochester, Lynn Sensors (Basel) Article Early diagnosis of Parkinson’s diseases (PD) is challenging; applying machine learning (ML) models to gait characteristics may support the classification process. Comparing performance of ML models used in various studies can be problematic due to different walking protocols and gait assessment systems. The objective of this study was to compare the impact of walking protocols and gait assessment systems on the performance of a support vector machine (SVM) and random forest (RF) for classification of PD. 93 PD and 103 controls performed two walking protocols at their normal pace: (i) four times along a 10 m walkway (intermittent walk-IW), (ii) walking for 2 minutes on a 25 m oval circuit (continuous walk-CW). 14 gait characteristics were extracted from two different systems (an instrumented walkway—GAITRite; and an accelerometer attached at the lower back—Axivity). SVM and RF were trained on normalized data (accounting for step velocity, gender, age and BMI) and evaluated using 10-fold cross validation with area under the curve (AUC). Overall performance was higher for both systems during CW compared to IW. SVM performed better than RF. With SVM, during CW Axivity significantly outperformed GAITRite (AUC: 87.83 ± 7.81% vs. 80.49 ± 9.85%); during IW systems performed similarly. These findings suggest that choice of testing protocol and sensing system may have a direct impact on ML PD classification results and highlight the need for standardization for wide scale implementation. MDPI 2019-12-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6960714/ /pubmed/31817393 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s19245363 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Rehman, Rana Zia Ur
Del Din, Silvia
Shi, Jian Qing
Galna, Brook
Lord, Sue
Yarnall, Alison J.
Guan, Yu
Rochester, Lynn
Comparison of Walking Protocols and Gait Assessment Systems for Machine Learning-Based Classification of Parkinson’s Disease
title Comparison of Walking Protocols and Gait Assessment Systems for Machine Learning-Based Classification of Parkinson’s Disease
title_full Comparison of Walking Protocols and Gait Assessment Systems for Machine Learning-Based Classification of Parkinson’s Disease
title_fullStr Comparison of Walking Protocols and Gait Assessment Systems for Machine Learning-Based Classification of Parkinson’s Disease
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Walking Protocols and Gait Assessment Systems for Machine Learning-Based Classification of Parkinson’s Disease
title_short Comparison of Walking Protocols and Gait Assessment Systems for Machine Learning-Based Classification of Parkinson’s Disease
title_sort comparison of walking protocols and gait assessment systems for machine learning-based classification of parkinson’s disease
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6960714/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31817393
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s19245363
work_keys_str_mv AT rehmanranaziaur comparisonofwalkingprotocolsandgaitassessmentsystemsformachinelearningbasedclassificationofparkinsonsdisease
AT deldinsilvia comparisonofwalkingprotocolsandgaitassessmentsystemsformachinelearningbasedclassificationofparkinsonsdisease
AT shijianqing comparisonofwalkingprotocolsandgaitassessmentsystemsformachinelearningbasedclassificationofparkinsonsdisease
AT galnabrook comparisonofwalkingprotocolsandgaitassessmentsystemsformachinelearningbasedclassificationofparkinsonsdisease
AT lordsue comparisonofwalkingprotocolsandgaitassessmentsystemsformachinelearningbasedclassificationofparkinsonsdisease
AT yarnallalisonj comparisonofwalkingprotocolsandgaitassessmentsystemsformachinelearningbasedclassificationofparkinsonsdisease
AT guanyu comparisonofwalkingprotocolsandgaitassessmentsystemsformachinelearningbasedclassificationofparkinsonsdisease
AT rochesterlynn comparisonofwalkingprotocolsandgaitassessmentsystemsformachinelearningbasedclassificationofparkinsonsdisease