Frontiers in neurology · 2024
Combined cortical thickness and blink reflex recovery cycle to differentiate essential tremor with and without resting tremor.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Calomino Camilla, Quattrone Andrea, Bianco Maria Giovanna, Nisticò Rita, Buonocore Jolanda, Crasà Marianna, Vaccaro Maria Grazia, Sarica Alessia, Quattrone Aldo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the performance of structural MRI cortical and subcortical morphometric data combined with blink-reflex recovery cycle (BRrc) values using machine learning (ML) models in distinguishing between essential tremor (ET) with resting tremor (rET) and classic ET.
METHODS: We enrolled 47 ET, 43 rET patients and 45 healthy controls (HC). All participants underwent brain 3 T-MRI and BRrc examination at different interstimulus intervals (ISIs, 100-300 msec). MRI data (cortical thickness, volumes, surface area, roughness, mean curvature and subcortical volumes) were extracted using Freesurfer on T1-weighted images. We employed two decision tree-based ML classification algorithms (eXtreme Gradient Boosting [XGBoost] and Random Forest) combining MRI data and BRrc values to differentiate between rET and ET patients.
RESULTS: ML models based exclusively on MRI features reached acceptable performance (AUC: 0.85-0.86) in differentiating rET from ET patients and from HC. Similar performances were obtained by ML models based on BRrc data (AUC: 0.81-0.82 in rET vs. ET and AUC: 0.88-0.89 in rET vs. HC). ML models combining imaging data (cortical thickness, surface, roughness, and mean curvature) together with BRrc values showed the highest classification performance in distinguishing between rET and ET patients, reaching AUC of 0.94 ± 0.05. The improvement in classification performances when BRrc data were added to imaging features was confirmed by both ML algorithms.
CONCLUSION: This study highlights the usefulness of adding a simple electrophysiological assessment such as BRrc to MRI cortical morphometric features for accurately distinguishing rET from ET patients, paving the way for a better classification of these ET syndromes.
METHODS: We enrolled 47 ET, 43 rET patients and 45 healthy controls (HC). All participants underwent brain 3 T-MRI and BRrc examination at different interstimulus intervals (ISIs, 100-300 msec). MRI data (cortical thickness, volumes, surface area, roughness, mean curvature and subcortical volumes) were extracted using Freesurfer on T1-weighted images. We employed two decision tree-based ML classification algorithms (eXtreme Gradient Boosting [XGBoost] and Random Forest) combining MRI data and BRrc values to differentiate between rET and ET patients.
RESULTS: ML models based exclusively on MRI features reached acceptable performance (AUC: 0.85-0.86) in differentiating rET from ET patients and from HC. Similar performances were obtained by ML models based on BRrc data (AUC: 0.81-0.82 in rET vs. ET and AUC: 0.88-0.89 in rET vs. HC). ML models combining imaging data (cortical thickness, surface, roughness, and mean curvature) together with BRrc values showed the highest classification performance in distinguishing between rET and ET patients, reaching AUC of 0.94 ± 0.05. The improvement in classification performances when BRrc data were added to imaging features was confirmed by both ML algorithms.
CONCLUSION: This study highlights the usefulness of adding a simple electrophysiological assessment such as BRrc to MRI cortical morphometric features for accurately distinguishing rET from ET patients, paving the way for a better classification of these ET syndromes.