Back

Magnetoencephalography-based interpretable automated differential diagnosis in neurodegenerative diseases

Klepachevskyi, D.; Romano, A.; Aristimunha, B.; Angiolelli, M.; Trojsi, F.; Bonavita, S.; Sorrentino, G.; Andreone, V.; Minino, R.; Troisi Lopez, E.; Polverino, A.; Jirsa, V.; Saudargiene, A.; Corsi, M. C.; Sorrentino, P.

2024-06-17 neurology
10.1101/2024.06.17.24309023 medRxiv
Show abstract

Automating the diagnostic process steps has been of interest for research grounds and to help manage the healthcare systems. Improved classification accuracies, provided by ever more sophisticated algorithms, were mirrored by the loss of interpretability on the criteria for achieving accuracy. In other words, the mechanisms responsible for generating the distinguishing features are typically not investigated. Furthermore, the vast majority of the classification studies focus on the classification of one disease as opposed to matched controls. While this scenario has internal validity, concerning the appropriateness toward answering scientific questions, it does not have external validity. In other words, differentiating multiple diseases at once is a classification problem closer to many real-world scenarios. In this work, we test the hypothesis that specific data features hold most of the discriminative power across multiple neurodegenerative diseases. Furthermore, we perform an explorative analysis to compare metrics based on different assumptions (concerning the underlying mechanisms). To test this hypothesis, we leverage a large Magnetoencephalography dataset (N=109) merging four cohorts, recorded in the same clinical setting, of patients affected by multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinsons disease, and mild cognitive impairment. Our results show that it is possible to reach a balanced accuracy of 67,1% (chance level = 35%), based on a small set of (non-disease specific) features. We show that edge metrics (defined as statistical dependencies between pairs of brain signals) perform better than nodal metrics (considering region while disregarding the interactions. Moreover, phase-based metrics slightly outperform amplitude-based metrics. In conclusion, our work shows that a small set of phase-based connectivity metrics applied to MEG data successfully distinguishes across multiple neurological diseases.

Published in Heliyon (predicted rank #12) · training set

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Brain Connectivity
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.0%
2
Neuroinformatics
46 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.7%
3
Network Neuroscience
126 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.7%
4
Human Brain Mapping
329 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
6.6%
5
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
41 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.1%
50% of probability mass above
6
Sensors
43 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.2%
7
NeuroImage
903 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.9%
8
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
3.9%
9
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
10
NeuroImage: Clinical
144 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.6%
11
Frontiers in Neurology
102 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.3%
Heliyon · published here
152 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.3%
13
Brain Sciences
55 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
14
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
15
Brain and Behavior
43 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
16
IEEE Access
35 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
17
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 63%
1.3%
18
Imaging Neuroscience
282 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
19
Journal of Neural Engineering
221 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
20
Brain Structure and Function
93 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
21
Clinical Neurophysiology
56 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.0%
22
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 59%
1.0%
23
Brain Communications
166 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
24
Bioengineering
29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
25
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
26
Brain Informatics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%