Menorca Chaturvedi, Florian Hatz, Ute Gschwandtner, Jan G. Bogaarts, Antonia Meyer, Peter Fuhr, Volker Roth
Abstract
Objectives: To find out which Quantitative EEG (QEEG) parameters could best distinguish patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) with and without Mild Cognitive Impairment from healthy individuals and to find an optimal method for feature selection. Background: Certain QEEG parameters have been seen to be associated with dementia in Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease. Studies have also shown some parameters to be dependent on the stage of the disease. We wanted to investigate the differences in high-resolution QEEG measures between groups of PD patients and healthy individuals, and come up with a small subset of features that could accurately distinguish between the two groups. Methods: High-resolution 256-channel EEG were recorded in 50 PD patients (age 68.8 ± 7.0 year; female/male 17/33) and 41 healthy controls (age 71.1 ± 7.7 year; female/male 20/22). Data was processed to calculate the relative power in alpha, theta, delta, beta frequency bands across the different regions of the brain. Median, peak frequencies were also obtained and alpha1/theta ratios were calculated. Machine learning methods were applied to the data and compared. Additionally, penalized Logistic regression using LASSO was applied to the data in R and a subset of best-performing features was obtained. Results: Random Forest and LASSO were found to be optimal methods for feature selection. A group of six measures selected by LASSO was seen to have the most effect in differentiating healthy individuals from PD patients. The most important variables were the theta power in temporal left region and the alpha1/theta ratio in the central left region. Conclusion: The penalized regression method applied was helpful in selecting a small group of features from a dataset that had high multicollinearity.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 February 2017.
All research outputs
#3,218,893
of 22,947,506 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#1,731
of 4,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,000
of 419,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#38
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,947,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,828 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 419,040 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
