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