Computerized identification of motor complications in Parkinson's disease

Objective: To investigate whether spirography-based objective measures are able to effectively characterize the severity of unwanted symptom states (Off and dyskinesia) and discriminate them from motor state of healthy elderly subjects. Background: Sixty-five patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease (PD) and 10 healthy elderly (HE) subjects performed repeated assessments of spirography, using a touch screen telemetry device in their home environments. On inclusion, the patients were either treated with levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel or were candidates for switching to this treatment. On each test occasion, the subjects were asked trace a pre-drawn Archimedes spiral shown on the screen, using an ergonomic pen stylus. The test was repeated three times and was performed using dominant hand. A clinician used a web interface which animated the spiral drawings, allowing him to observe different kinematic features, like accelerations and spatial changes, during the drawing process and to rate different motor impairments. Initially, the motor impairments of drawing speed, irregularity and hesitation were rated on a 0 (normal) to 4 (extremely severe) scales followed by marking the momentary motor state of the patient into 2 categories that is Off and Dyskinesia. A sample of spirals drawn by HE subjects was randomly selected and used in subsequent analysis. Methods: The raw spiral data, consisting of stylus position and timestamp, were processed using time series analysis techniques like discrete wavelet transform, approximate entropy and dynamic time warping in order to extract 13 quantitative measures for representing meaningful motor impairment information. A principal component analysis (PCA) was used to reduce the dimensions of the quantitative measures into 4 principal components (PC). In order to classify the motor states into 3 categories that is Off, HE and dyskinesia, a logistic regression model was used as a classifier to map the 4 PCs to the corresponding clinically assigned motor state categories. A stratified 10-fold cross-validation (also known as rotation estimation) was applied to assess the generalization ability of the logistic regression classifier to future independent data sets. To investigate mean differences of the 4 PCs across the three categories, a one-way ANOVA test followed by Tukey multiple comparisons was used. Results: The agreements between computed and clinician ratings were very good with a weighted area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) coefficient of 0.91. The mean PC scores were different across the three motor state categories, only at different levels. The first 2 PCs were good at discriminating between the motor states whereas the PC3 was good at discriminating between HE subjects and PD patients. The mean scores of PC4 showed a trend across the three states but without significant differences. The Spearman’s rank correlations between the first 2 PCs and clinically assessed motor impairments were as follows: drawing speed (PC1, 0.34; PC2, 0.83), irregularity (PC1, 0.17; PC2, 0.17), and hesitation (PC1, 0.27; PC2, 0.77). Conclusions: These findings suggest that spirography-based objective measures are valid measures of spatial- and time-dependent deficits and can be used to distinguish drug-related motor dysfunctions between Off and dyskinesia in PD. These measures can be potentially useful during clinical evaluation of individualized drug-related complications such as over- and under-medications thus maximizing the amount of time the patients spend in the On state.

A web-based system for visualizing upper limb motor performance of Parkinson’s disease patients

Objective To design, develop and set up a web-based system for enabling graphical visualization of upper limb motor performance (ULMP) of Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients to clinicians. Background Sixty-five patients diagnosed with advanced PD have used a test battery, implemented in a touch-screen handheld computer, in their home environment settings over the course of a 3-year clinical study. The test items consisted of objective measures of ULMP through a set of upper limb motor tests (finger to tapping and spiral drawings). For the tapping tests, patients were asked to perform alternate tapping of two buttons as fast and accurate as possible, first using the right hand and then the left hand. The test duration was 20 seconds. For the spiral drawing test, patients traced a pre-drawn Archimedes spiral using the dominant hand, and the test was repeated 3 times per test occasion. In total, the study database consisted of symptom assessments during 10079 test occasions. Methods Visualization of ULMP The web-based system is used by two neurologists for assessing the performance of PD patients during motor tests collected over the course of the said study. The system employs animations, scatter plots and time series graphs to visualize the ULMP of patients to the neurologists. The performance during spiral tests is depicted by animating the three spiral drawings, allowing the neurologists to observe real-time accelerations or hesitations and sharp changes during the actual drawing process. The tapping performance is visualized by displaying different types of graphs. Information presented included distribution of taps over the two buttons, horizontal tap distance vs. time, vertical tap distance vs. time, and tapping reaction time over the test length. Assessments Different scales are utilized by the neurologists to assess the observed impairments. For the spiral drawing performance, the neurologists rated firstly the ‘impairment’ using a 0 (no impairment) – 10 (extremely severe) scale, secondly three kinematic properties: ‘drawing speed’, ‘irregularity’ and ‘hesitation’ using a 0 (normal) – 4 (extremely severe) scale, and thirdly the probable ‘cause’ for the said impairment using 3 choices including Tremor, Bradykinesia/Rigidity and Dyskinesia. For the tapping performance, a 0 (normal) – 4 (extremely severe) scale is used for first rating four tapping properties: ‘tapping speed’, ‘accuracy’, ‘fatigue’, ‘arrhythmia’, and then the ‘global tapping severity’ (GTS). To achieve a common basis for assessment, initially one neurologist (DN) performed preliminary ratings by browsing through the database to collect and rate at least 20 samples of each GTS level and at least 33 samples of each ‘cause’ category. These preliminary ratings were then observed by the two neurologists (DN and PG) to be used as templates for rating of tests afterwards. In another track, the system randomly selected one test occasion per patient and visualized its items, that is tapping and spiral drawings, to the two neurologists. Statistical methods Inter-rater agreements were assessed using weighted Kappa coefficient. The internal consistency of properties of tapping and spiral drawing tests were assessed using Cronbach’s α test. One-way ANOVA test followed by Tukey multiple comparisons test was used to test if mean scores of properties of tapping and spiral drawing tests were different among GTS and ‘cause’ categories, respectively. Results When rating tapping graphs, inter-rater agreements (Kappa) were as follows: GTS (0.61), ‘tapping speed’ (0.89), ‘accuracy’ (0.66), ‘fatigue’ (0.57) and ‘arrhythmia’ (0.33). The poor inter-rater agreement when assessing “arrhythmia” may be as a result of observation of different things in the graphs, among the two raters. When rating animated spirals, both raters had very good agreement when assessing severity of spiral drawings, that is, ‘impairment’ (0.85) and irregularity (0.72). However, there were poor agreements between the two raters when assessing ‘cause’ (0.38) and time-information properties like ‘drawing speed’ (0.25) and ‘hesitation’ (0.21). Tapping properties, that is ‘tapping speed’, ‘accuracy’, ‘fatigue’ and ‘arrhythmia’ had satisfactory internal consistency with a Cronbach’s α coefficient of 0.77. In general, the trends of mean scores of tapping properties worsened with increasing levels of GTS. The mean scores of the four properties were significantly different to each other, only at different levels. In contrast from tapping properties, kinematic properties of spirals, that is ‘drawing speed’, ‘irregularity’ and ‘hesitation’ had a questionable consistency among them with a coefficient of 0.66. Bradykinetic spirals were associated with more impaired speed (mean = 83.7 % worse, P < 0.001) and hesitation (mean = 77.8% worse, P < 0.001), compared to dyskinetic spirals. Both these ‘cause’ categories had similar mean scores of ‘impairment’ and ‘irregularity’. Conclusions In contrast from current approaches used in clinical setting for the assessment of PD symptoms, this system enables clinicians to animate easily and realistically the ULMP of patients who at the same time are at their homes. Dynamic access of visualized motor tests may also be useful when observing and evaluating therapy-related complications such as under- and over-medications. In future, we foresee to utilize these manual ratings for developing and validating computer methods for automating the process of assessing ULMP of PD patients.

Digital spiral analysis for objective assessment of fine motor timing variability in Parkinson's disease

OBJECTIVES: To develop a method for objective assessment of fine motor timing variability in Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients, using digital spiral data gathered by a touch screen device. BACKGROUND: A retrospective analysis was conducted on data from 105 subjects including65 patients with advanced PD (group A), 15 intermediate patients experiencing motor fluctuations (group I), 15 early stage patients (group S), and 10 healthy elderly subjects (HE) were examined. The subjects were asked to perform repeated upper limb motor tasks by tracing a pre-drawn Archimedes spiral as shown on the screen of the device. The spiral tracing test was performed using an ergonomic pen stylus, using dominant hand. The test was repeated three times per test occasion and the subjects were instructed to complete it within 10 seconds. Digital spiral data including stylus position (x-ycoordinates) and timestamps (milliseconds) were collected and used in subsequent analysis. The total number of observations with the test battery were as follows: Swedish group (n=10079), Italian I group (n=822), Italian S group (n = 811), and HE (n=299). METHODS: The raw spiral data were processed with three data processing methods. To quantify motor timing variability during spiral drawing tasks Approximate Entropy (APEN) method was applied on digitized spiral data. APEN is designed to capture the amount of irregularity or complexity in time series. APEN requires determination of two parameters, namely, the window size and similarity measure. In our work and after experimentation, window size was set to 4 and similarity measure to 0.2 (20% of the standard deviation of the time series). The final score obtained by APEN was normalized by total drawing completion time and used in subsequent analysis. The score generated by this method is hence on denoted APEN. In addition, two more methods were applied on digital spiral data and their scores were used in subsequent analysis. The first method was based on Digital Wavelet Transform and Principal Component Analysis and generated a score representing spiral drawing impairment. The score generated by this method is hence on denoted WAV. The second method was based on standard deviation of frequency filtered drawing velocity. The score generated by this method is hence on denoted SDDV. Linear mixed-effects (LME) models were used to evaluate mean differences of the spiral scores of the three methods across the four subject groups. Test-retest reliability of the three scores was assessed after taking mean of the three possible correlations (Spearman’s rank coefficients) between the three test trials. Internal consistency of the methods was assessed by calculating correlations between their scores. RESULTS: When comparing mean spiral scores between the four subject groups, the APEN scores were different between HE subjects and three patient groups (P=0.626 for S group with 9.9% mean value difference, P=0.089 for I group with 30.2%, and P=0.0019 for A group with 44.1%). However, there were no significant differences in mean scores of the other two methods, except for the WAV between the HE and A groups (P<0.001). WAV and SDDV were highly and significantly correlated to each other with a coefficient of 0.69. However, APEN was not correlated to neither WAV nor SDDV with coefficients of 0.11 and 0.12, respectively. Test-retest reliability coefficients of the three scores were as follows: APEN (0.9), WAV(0.83) and SD-DV (0.55). CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the digital spiral analysis-based objective APEN measure is able to significantly differentiate the healthy subjects from patients at advanced level. In contrast to the other two methods (WAV and SDDV) that are designed to quantify dyskinesias (over-medications), this method can be useful for characterizing Off symptoms in PD. The APEN was not correlated to none of the other two methods indicating that it measures a different construct of upper limb motor function in PD patients than WAV and SDDV. The APEN also had a better test-retest reliability indicating that it is more stable and consistent over time than WAV and SDDV.

Automatic spiral analysis for objective assessment of motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease

Objective: To develop a method for objective quantification of PD motor symptoms related to Off episodes and peak dose dyskinesias, using spiral data gathered by using a touch screen telemetry device. The aim was to objectively characterize predominant motor phenotypes (bradykinesia and dyskinesia), to help in automating the process of visual interpretation of movement anomalies in spirals as rated by movement disorder specialists. Background: A retrospective analysis was conducted on recordings from 65 patients with advanced idiopathic PD from nine different clinics in Sweden, recruited from January 2006 until August 2010. In addition to the patient group, 10 healthy elderly subjects were recruited. Upper limb movement data were collected using a touch screen telemetry device from home environments of the subjects. Measurements with the device were performed four times per day during week-long test periods. On each test occasion, the subjects were asked to trace pre-drawn Archimedean spirals, using the dominant hand. The pre-drawn spiral was shown on the screen of the device. The spiral test was repeated three times per test occasion and they were instructed to complete it within 10 seconds. The device had a sampling rate of 10Hz and measured both position and time-stamps (in milliseconds) of the pen tip. Methods: Four independent raters (FB, DH, AJ and DN) used a web interface that animated the spiral drawings and allowed them to observe different kinematic features during the drawing process and to rate task performance. Initially, a number of kinematic features were assessed including ‘impairment’, ‘speed’, ‘irregularity’ and ‘hesitation’ followed by marking the predominant motor phenotype on a 3-category scale: tremor, bradykinesia and/or choreatic dyskinesia. There were only 2 test occasions for which all the four raters either classified them as tremor or could not identify the motor phenotype. Therefore, the two main motor phenotype categories were bradykinesia and dyskinesia. ‘Impairment’ was rated on a scale from 0 (no impairment) to 10 (extremely severe) whereas ‘speed’, ‘irregularity’ and ‘hesitation’ were rated on a scale from 0 (normal) to 4 (extremely severe). The proposed data-driven method consisted of the following steps. Initially, 28 spatiotemporal features were extracted from the time series signals before being presented to a Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) classifier. The features were based on different kinematic quantities of spirals including radius, angle, speed and velocity with the aim of measuring the severity of involuntary symptoms and discriminate between PD-specific (bradykinesia) and/or treatment-induced symptoms (dyskinesia). A Principal Component Analysis was applied on the features to reduce their dimensions where 4 relevant principal components (PCs) were retained and used as inputs to the MLP classifier. Finally, the MLP classifier mapped these components to the corresponding visually assessed motor phenotype scores for automating the process of scoring the bradykinesia and dyskinesia in PD patients whilst they draw spirals using the touch screen device. For motor phenotype (bradykinesia vs. dyskinesia) classification, the stratified 10-fold cross validation technique was employed. Results: There were good agreements between the four raters when rating the individual kinematic features with intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.88 for ‘impairment’, 0.74 for ‘speed’, 0.70 for ‘irregularity’, and moderate agreements when rating ‘hesitation’ with an ICC of 0.49. When assessing the two main motor phenotype categories (bradykinesia or dyskinesia) in animated spirals the agreements between the four raters ranged from fair to moderate. There were good correlations between mean ratings of the four raters on individual kinematic features and computed scores. The MLP classifier classified the motor phenotype that is bradykinesia or dyskinesia with an accuracy of 85% in relation to visual classifications of the four movement disorder specialists. The test-retest reliability of the four PCs across the three spiral test trials was good with Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients of 0.80, 0.82, 0.54 and 0.49, respectively. These results indicate that the computed scores are stable and consistent over time. Significant differences were found between the two groups (patients and healthy elderly subjects) in all the PCs, except for the PC3. Conclusions: The proposed method automatically assessed the severity of unwanted symptoms and could reasonably well discriminate between PD-specific and/or treatment-induced motor symptoms, in relation to visual assessments of movement disorder specialists. The objective assessments could provide a time-effect summary score that could be useful for improving decision-making during symptom evaluation of individualized treatment when the goal is to maximize functional On time for patients while minimizing their Off episodes and troublesome dyskinesias.