ArticleDigital health
Hybrid preprocessing and ensemble classification for enhanced detection of Parkinson's disease using multiple speech signal databases.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Effect of Data Leakage and Feature Selection on Machine Learning Performance for Early Parkinson's Disease Detection.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: With the increasing prevalence of Parkinson's disease (PD) and the development of PD-based acoustic recording databases, this study aims to evaluate the feasibility of using an ensemble-based machine learning (ML) approach to detect PD across diverse acoustic datasets. Methods: We utilized three publicly available PD speech datasets-MIU (Sakar), UEX (Carrón), and UCI (Little)-to build ML models incorporating a hybrid preprocessing framework. This framework includes a scaling phase (using RobustScaler), a sampling phase (employing random oversampling (ROS), synthetic minority oversampling technique (SMOTE), and random undersampling (RUS)), and an ML classifier selection phase (featuring eXtreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) and adaptive boosting (AdaBoost)). Performance was evaluated using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score metrics. Additionally, we conducted SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) analysis to identify the most significant PD-related acoustic features. Results: The optimal combination of preprocessing and classification techniques varied across datasets. However, the highest classification performance was generally achieved using RobustScaler for scaling, a combination of ROS, SMOTE, and RUS for sampling, and XGBoost or AdaBoost for classification. The best-performing model on the MIU dataset achieved accuracy of 97.37%, precision of 96.07%, and F1-score of 96.57%. The UEX and UCI datasets achieved perfect classification with 100% accuracy, precision, and recall. SHAP analysis revealed that Mel-frequency cepstral coefficients were consistently among the most influential PD-related acoustic features. Conclusions: Our findings confirm the feasibility of an ensemble-based approach for PD detection using acoustic recordings, highlighting the importance of dataset-specific preprocessing strategies. This study ranks impactful PD-related acoustic features, offering guidance for future voice-based PD screening tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.