ArticleScientific reports2026
Enhancing prediction accuracy for Parkinson's disease using advanced machine learning models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Globally, Parkinson's disease (PD), a neurological disorder, has a negative influence on the health of older adults. PD has no validated means of treatment, and thus, affects both social (i.e., mental) and physical health among individuals who experience PD. Therefore, it is essential to develop new methods for detecting PD to benefit the health of everyone involved. There is an opportunity to improve PD detection and accuracy by leveraging structured data sources and employing machine learning (ML). Ultimately, the goal of this research work is to provide an overall descriptive ML approach to diagnose PD utilizing acoustical data from the UCI Parkinson's disease dataset and comparing XGBoost, random forest (RF), Support vector machine (SVM), and K-nearest neighbours (KNN), four of the most common algorithms for classifying data, in their ability to classify PD. The research project was conducted in four phases: (1) establishing a baseline model; (2) Stratifying a 10-Fold cross-validation; (3) Balancing the classes with synthetic minority oversampling (SMOTE); and (4) Reducing dimensions with principal component analysis (PCA). XGBoost achieved the highest accuracy (97.22%) among all models for classifying PD across all four phases of the research project, and also the highest Matthews correlation coefficient among all algorithms tested. This proves that XGBoost is better suited to model non-linear relationships. The results of the experiment showed that using SMOTE significantly improved the performance of the ML classification algorithm, especially that of the KNN algorithm. PCA significantly reduced the dataset's dimensionality without sacrificing discriminative information. The outcomes demonstrated that the ML classification algorithms exhibited apparent performance differences, which diminished after applying SMOTE and PCA. Hence, it can be concluded that all machine learning classification algorithms had statistically similar classifier performance after the use of SMOTE and PCA. The results show that machine learning classification algorithms, particularly XGBoost and KNN, are effective at detecting PD early. The integration of SHAP-based explainability demonstrates that the proposed framework is not only accurate but also interpretable, thereby bridging the gap between predicted and clinically obtained results in PD diagnosis.
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.