Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Machine learning based on the EEG and structural MRI can predict different stages of vascular cognitive impairment.
Li, Zihao; Wu, Meini; Yin, Changhao; Wang, Zhenqi; Wang, Jianhang; Chen, Lingyu; Zhao, Weina.
Afiliación
  • Li Z; Department of Neurology, Hongqi Hospital Affiliated to Mudanjiang Medical University, Mudanjiang, China.
  • Wu M; Department of Neurology, Taizhou Second People's Hospital, Taizhou, Zhejiang, China.
  • Yin C; Department of Neurology, Hongqi Hospital Affiliated to Mudanjiang Medical University, Mudanjiang, China.
  • Wang Z; Department of Neurology, Taizhou Second People's Hospital, Taizhou, Zhejiang, China.
  • Wang J; Department of Neurology, Hongqi Hospital Affiliated to Mudanjiang Medical University, Mudanjiang, China.
  • Chen L; Department of Neurology, Hongqi Hospital Affiliated to Mudanjiang Medical University, Mudanjiang, China.
  • Zhao W; Department of Neurology, Hongqi Hospital Affiliated to Mudanjiang Medical University, Mudanjiang, China.
Front Aging Neurosci ; 16: 1364808, 2024.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38646447
ABSTRACT

Background:

Vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) is a major cause of cognitive impairment in the elderly and a co-factor in the development and progression of most neurodegenerative diseases. With the continuing development of neuroimaging, multiple markers can be combined to provide richer biological information, but little is known about their diagnostic value in VCI.

Methods:

A total of 83 subjects participated in our study, including 32 patients with vascular cognitive impairment with no dementia (VCIND), 21 patients with vascular dementia (VD), and 30 normal controls (NC). We utilized resting-state quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) power spectra, structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI) for feature screening, and combined them with support vector machines to predict VCI patients at different disease stages.

Results:

The classification performance of sMRI outperformed qEEG when distinguishing VD from NC (AUC of 0.90 vs. 0,82), and sMRI also outperformed qEEG when distinguishing VD from VCIND (AUC of 0.8 vs. 0,0.64), but both underperformed when distinguishing VCIND from NC (AUC of 0.58 vs. 0.56). In contrast, the joint model based on qEEG and sMRI features showed relatively good classification accuracy (AUC of 0.72) to discriminate VCIND from NC, higher than that of either qEEG or sMRI alone.

Conclusion:

Patients at varying stages of VCI exhibit diverse levels of brain structure and neurophysiological abnormalities. EEG serves as an affordable and convenient diagnostic means to differentiate between different VCI stages. A machine learning model that utilizes EEG and sMRI as composite markers is highly valuable in distinguishing diverse VCI stages and in individually tailoring the diagnosis.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Front Aging Neurosci Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: China

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Front Aging Neurosci Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: China