CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 145Artificial Intelligence in HealthcareParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 113 of the 118 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predictive Big Data Analytics: A Study of Parkinson’s Disease Using Large, Complex, Heterogeneous, Incongruent, Multi-Source and Incomplete Observations

Open access
Dinov, Ivo D., Heavner, Ben, Tang, Ming, Glusman, Gustavo, Chard, Kyle, Darcy, Mike, Madduri, Ravi, Pa, Judy, Spino, Cathie, Kesselman, Carl, Foster, Ian, Deutsch, Eric W., Price, Nathan D., Van Horn, John D., Ames, Joseph, Clark, Kristi, Hood, Leroy, Hampstead, Benjamin M., Dauer, William, Toga, Arthur W.·2016·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0157077PMC PMC4975403
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A unique archive of Big Data on Parkinson's Disease is collected, managed and disseminated by the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI). The integration of such complex and heterogeneous Big Data from multiple sources offers unparalleled opportunities to study the early stages of prevalent neurodegenerative processes, track their progression and quickly identify the efficacies of alternative treatments. Many previous human and animal studies have examined the relationship of Parkinson's disease (PD) risk to trauma, genetics, environment, co-morbidities, or life style. The defining characteristics of Big Data-large size, incongruency, incompleteness, complexity, multiplicity of scales, and heterogeneity of information-generating sources-all pose challenges to the classical techniques for data management, processing, visualization and interpretation. We propose, implement, test and validate complementary model-based and model-free approaches for PD classification and prediction. To explore PD risk using Big Data methodology, we jointly processed complex PPMI imaging, genetics, clinical and demographic data. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Collective representation of the multi-source data facilitates the aggregation and harmonization of complex data elements. This enables joint modeling of the complete data, leading to the development of Big Data analytics, predictive synthesis, and statistical validation. Using heterogeneous PPMI data, we developed a comprehensive protocol for end-to-end data characterization, manipulation, processing, cleaning, analysis and validation. Specifically, we (i) introduce methods for rebalancing imbalanced cohorts, (ii) utilize a wide spectrum of classification methods to generate consistent and powerful phenotypic predictions, and (iii) generate reproducible machine-learning based classification that enables the reporting of model parameters and diagnostic forecasting based on new data. We evaluated several complementary model-based predictive approaches, which failed to generate accurate and reliable diagnostic predictions. However, the results of several machine-learning based classification methods indicated significant power to predict Parkinson's disease in the PPMI subjects (consistent accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity exceeding 96%, confirmed using statistical n-fold cross-validation). Clinical (e.g., Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) scores), demographic (e.g., age), genetics (e.g., rs34637584, chr12), and derived neuroimaging biomarker (e.g., cerebellum shape index) data all contributed to the predictive analytics and diagnostic forecasting. CONCLUSIONS: Model-free Big Data machine learning-based classification methods (e.g., adaptive boosting, support vector machines) can outperform model-based techniques in terms of predictive precision and reliability (e.g., forecasting patient diagnosis). We observed that statistical rebalancing of cohort sizes yields better discrimination of group differences, specifically for predictive analytics based on heterogeneous and incomplete PPMI data. UPDRS scores play a critical role in predicting diagnosis, which is expected based on the clinical definition of Parkinson's disease. Even without longitudinal UPDRS data, however, the accuracy of model-free machine learning based classification is over 80%. The methods, software and protocols developed here are openly shared and can be employed to study other neurodegenerative disorders (e.g., Alzheimer's, Huntington's, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), as well as for other predictive Big Data analytics applications.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0157077

Cites

113 of 113 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 118 references

5 of the 118 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. MA Nalls, 2015, Diagnosis of Parkinson's disease on the basis of clinical and genetic classification: a population-based modelling study, The Lancet Neurology

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–144 of 144

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Dinov, I. D., Heavner, B., Tang, M., Glusman, G., Chard, K., Darcy, M., Madduri, R., Pa, J., Spino, C., Kesselman, C., Foster, I., Deutsch, E. W., Price, N. D., Van Horn, J. D., Ames, J., Clark, K., Hood, L., Hampstead, B. M., Dauer, W., & Toga, A. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • Institute for Systems Biology (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Argonne National Laboratory (US)
Corresponding author
Dinov, Ivo D.
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2016-08-05
Volume
11
Issue
8
Pages
e0157077
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0157077
PMC
PMC4975403
OpenAlex
W2409767563
Cited by
145
References
118
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 1
FWCI
28.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Knowledge@UChicago (University of Chicago) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University of Chicago (cc-by)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (P20 NR015331, U54 EB020406, P50 NS091856)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Parkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Keywords
Parkinson's disease, Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative, big data analytics, multi-source data fusion, disease risk prediction, machine learning classification, neuroimaging biomarkers, UPDRS scores, neurodegeneration, data harmonization
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Parkinson Disease, Logistic Models, Databases, Factual, Disease Progression, Neuroimaging, Support Vector Machine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review