Back

Deep learning-based algorithm versus physician judgement for diagnosis of myopathy and neuropathy from needle electromyography

YOO, I.; Yoo, J.; Kim, D.; Youn, I.; Kim, H.; Youn, M.; Won, J. H.; Cho, W.; Myong, Y.; Kim, S.; Yu, R.; Kim, S.-M.; Kim, K.; Lee, S.-B.; Kim, K.

2023-01-14 neurology
10.1101/2023.01.13.23284511 medRxiv
Show abstract

Electromyography is a valuable diagnostic procedure for diagnosing patients with neuromuscular diseases; however, it has some drawbacks. First, diagnosis using electromyography is subjective, and in some cases, there is the potential for inter-individual discrepancies. Second, it is a time- and effort-intensive process that requires expertise to yield accurate results. Recently, a deep learning algorithm shows effectiveness for the analysis of waveform data such as electrocardiography. To overcome limitations of electromyography, we developed a deep learning-based electromyography classification system and compared the performance of our deep learning model with that of six physicians. This study included 58 subjects who underwent electromyography and were finally confirmed as having myopathy or neuropathy, or to be in a normal state between June 2015 and July 2020 at Seoul National University Hospital. We developed a one-dimensional convolutional neural network algorithm and divide-and-vote system for diagnosing subjects. Diagnosis results with our deep learning model were compared with those of six physicians with experience in performing and interpreting electromyography. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of the deep learning model for diagnosis as to whether subjects have myopathy or neuropathy or normal were 0.875, 0.820, 0.904, and 0.820, respectively, whereas those for the physicians were 0.694, 0.537, 0.773, and 0.524, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of the deep learning model for predicting myopathy, neuropathy, and normal states was better than the averaged results of six physicians. Our study showed that deep learning could play a key role in reading electromyography and diagnosing patients with neuromuscular diseases. In the future, large prospective cohort studies incorporating diverse neuromuscular diseases can enable deep learning-based electrodiagnosis on behalf of physicians.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Muscle & Nerve
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.3%
2
Frontiers in Neurology
102 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
9.9%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 18%
9.9%
4
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.9%
5
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
49 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.4%
6
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 25%
4.1%
7
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
34 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.3%
50% of probability mass above
8
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
9
Sensors
43 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.5%
10
Journal of Translational Medicine
57 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.2%
11
Frontiers in Pain Research
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.2%
12
Brain Sciences
55 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.2%
13
Journal of Neural Engineering
221 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.2%
14
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
15
Bioengineering
29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
16
Heliyon
152 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
17
Applied Sciences
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
18
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.4%
19
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
36 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
20
Clinical Neurophysiology
56 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
21
Journal of Neurology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
22
Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
23
BMC Neurology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
24
Parkinsonism & Related Disorders
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
25
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
26
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
27
IEEE Access
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
28
Medicine
31 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
29
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 20%
0.9%