Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Parkinson's Disease Recognition Using SPECT Image and Interpretable AI: A Tutorial

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that among six interpretation methods for SPECT-based Parkinson's recognition, guided backpropagation best localizes the striatum (highest Dice coefficient) while SHAP best discriminates PD from normal at the uptake…

desk verdict A useful tutorial-style comparison of six XAI methods on SPECT-PD, with a plausible but not fully established ranking; the main soft spot is the unvalidated striatal ground-truth mask. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11199 v5 pith:T7AUXKPW submitted 2019-08-23 eess.IV cs.LGstat.ML

Theerasarn Pianpanit , Sermkiat Lolak , Phattarapong Sawangjai , Thapanun Sudhawiyangkul , Theerawit Wilaiprasitporn This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.LGstat.ML
keywords Parkinson'sdiseaseSPECTimaginginterpretableAIdeepconvolutionalneuralnetworksguidedbackpropagationSHAPmodelinterpretationcomputer-aideddiagnosis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This tutorial paper answers a practical question: when a deep network classifies dopamine-transporter SPECT images as Parkinson's disease (PD) or normal control, which interpretation method should a clinician trust? The authors train four convolutional architectures on 607 subjects from a public SPECT dataset, apply six interpretation methods, and evaluate each method's attention map against a threshold-based striatum segmentation used as ground truth. They find that guided backpropagation yields the best fine-grained importance maps, shown by the highest Dice coefficient and lowest error, while SHAP best localizes the dopamine-uptake depletion in PD subjects. They also show that such interpretation scores can serve as a tie-breaker when choosing among models whose classification accuracies are statistically indistinguishable.

What carries the argument

The evaluative machinery is a thresholded segmentation of striatal nuclei that serves as ground truth for interpretation quality. Slices 35 through 48 of each SPECT volume are averaged and normalized, then segmented using mean uptake thresholds of 0.63 for normal controls and 0.69 for PD subjects, values taken from an earlier shape-analysis study; each interpretation method's attention map is thresholded at its top 10% and top 1% contribution pixels, and compared against this mask with the Dice coefficient, mean absolute error plots, and overlays of mean binary heatmaps. This turns the qualitative question 'does the network look at the right place' into a repeatable numeric ranking of interpretation methods, and the ranking is then used as feedback to select among otherwise tied classifiers.

What would settle it

Replace the threshold-derived striatal masks with ground truth drawn independently by several nuclear-medicine physicians on the same scans and recompute the Dice rankings; if the ordering of interpretation methods changes, the paper's conclusion is an artifact of the threshold choice. A second check would repeat the comparison on an external SPECT dataset from a different scanner or preprocessing pipeline, since all images here come from a single acquisition protocol.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that interpretation methods are not interchangeable for SPECT-based PD recognition: guided backpropagation dominates the other five tested methods in aligning attention with the striatal nuclei, reaching a mean Dice coefficient of 66.07 ± 12.62 at the top-1% threshold on Deep PD Net versus 45.32 for the next best method, and displaying the lowest mean absolute error inside the striatum. SHAP, though weaker on Dice, is the method whose mean binary heatmap visually marks the dopamine-depletion region in PD subjects, making it the best discriminator between PD and control at the clinically meaningful location. The authors further claim that these interpretation scores can break ties in model selection, and they recommend Deep PD Net for this task because its guided-backpropagation interpretation is significantly better than that of PD Net with batch normalization despite similar classification metrics.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that striatal uptake regions as defined by fixed thresholds from a different study are the correct target that a faithful explanation should highlight; if a model attended to other clinically meaningful cues, or if those thresholds mis-segment these particular subjects, the Dice scores and the recommendation of guided backpropagation would not reflect true interpretation fidelity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Use guided backpropagation to verify at voxel level that a SPECT-PD classifier is focusing on the striatum rather than on artifacts.
  • Use SHAP to visualize where dopamine uptake is depleted in a given PD patient for clinical communication.
  • Interpretation scores can settle model selection when classifiers have statistically indistinguishable accuracy and specificity.
  • The evaluation procedure, Dice against a thresholded anatomical mask, transfers to other imaging CAD tasks with known anatomical targets.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A ground-truth mask weighted toward the dorsal putamen, the region affected earliest in PD, could shift the ranking toward SHAP rather than guided backpropagation, since SHAP's advantage lies exactly at the depletion site.
  • The conclusions come from two network families; re-running the evaluation on the more recent state-of-the-art architecture with thousands of images would test whether the ranking generalizes to higher-performing models.
  • The fixed thresholds from the cited shape-analysis study could be re-estimated per subject from striatal binding ratios, making the evaluation self-contained and potentially reducing segmentation bias.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a tutorial for selecting an interpretability method for deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) that classify Parkinson's disease (PD) from SPECT images. Four DCNN architectures (PD Net, Deep PD Net, and their batch-normalized variants) are trained on PPMI data, and six interpretation methods (saliency map, guided backpropagation, Grad-CAM, Guided Grad-CAM, DeepLIFT, and SHAP) are compared. The authors propose to evaluate interpretation quality by measuring Dice coefficient and mean absolute error between binarized attention maps and a striatal ground-truth segmentation derived from thresholds reported in a previous study, and they further propose using interpretation performance as a model-selection criterion. The central claims are that guided backpropagation provides the best fine-grained importance (highest Dice, lowest error) and that SHAP produces the best heatmap at the uptake depletion location, discriminating PD from normal control subjects.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper offers a reusable procedure for choosing interpretation methods in medical imaging and for using interpretation quality in model selection, with public code and data sources. The use of 10-fold cross-validation, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and a public dataset (PPMI) are concrete strengths that support the reproducibility of the classification and Dice comparisons. However, the significance is limited by the absence of validation for the ground-truth segmentation, the purely visual support for the SHAP claim, and the unstated construct assumption that a faithful interpretation must overlap the striatal uptake region. These issues are load-bearing because they directly support the paper's main method ranking and its proposed workflow.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-B, Table IV, Figure 5] The ground-truth masks used to rank interpretation methods are generated by applying the mean thresholds (0.63 for NC, 0.69 for PD) from Ref. [22] to slice-averaged, [0,1]-normalized images. These thresholds are means of expert-selected values from a different study, and the manuscript provides no evidence that the thresholding protocol transfers to this cohort and preprocessing. Because every Dice coefficient and MAE value in Table IV and Figure 5 depends on these masks, the central ranking of guided backpropagation and the model-selection recommendation in Figure 7 are not established unless the segmentation is validated. I recommend a sensitivity analysis over the reported ±0.04/±0.05 standard deviations, or comparison with an atlas-based or independently expert-derived striatal ROI, to show that the ranking is robust.
  2. [Section IV, Figure 6] The claim that SHAP outperforms other methods in discriminating PD from NC at the uptake depletion location is supported only by visual inspection of mean overlays. No quantitative metric or statistical test is reported for this claim, and it is not captured by the Dice/MAE evaluation, which actually ranks SHAP lower than several other methods. The authors should define a quantitative criterion (for example, contrast in the putamen region showing reduced uptake, or overlap with an asymmetry-based region) and report its distribution over test folds with a significance test; otherwise the second half of the central recommendation is not supported.
  3. [Section III-C, Section IV] The evaluation implicitly defines a faithful interpretation as one whose high-attention pixels overlap the segmented striatum. A model could be correct and faithful while relying on extra-striatal cues (for instance, global asymmetry or background normalization), and such an interpretation would receive a low Dice score. This construct-validity assumption is not stated or discussed, yet it underlies the use of the Dice coefficient as the primary evidence for guided backpropagation. The manuscript should explicitly discuss this limitation and ideally probe it, for example by evaluating whether the top-ranked method localizes class-discriminative regions that are not strictly inside the striatal mask.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, Section V] The abstract and conclusion state that guided backpropagation has the 'lowest mean square error,' but Section III-C and Figure 5 report mean absolute error; these terms should be reconciled.
  2. [Footnote 1, Section I] The footnote says code and data sources 'will be published immediately after getting an acceptance letter,' while the introduction claims the code 'was uploaded and can be downloaded publicly'; please clarify the actual availability status.
  3. [Table I, Section II-B] The text reports Wenzel et al. accuracy as 97.7%, while Table I lists 97.20%; the discrepancy should be corrected.
  4. [Section III-A, Subsection 1] The description of guided backpropagation as setting the gradient of layer l to zero when the gradient of layer l+1 is negative is imprecise; the method also masks the forward activations, and this should be stated clearly.
  5. [Figure 5] The mean absolute error plots are difficult to read in grayscale because the curves overlap; consider using distinct colors or separate panels for each method.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the interpretation ranking is measured against an external striatal ground truth, not derived from the quantities being claimed.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing quantitative claims are the Dice and MAE comparisons between six interpretation methods and a striatal ground-truth mask. The mask is generated by thresholding slice-averaged SPECT images with fixed mean thresholds (0.63 for NC, 0.69 for PD) transferred from the external study [22], and the same mask is applied uniformly to all methods. No parameter is fitted to the interpretation outputs, and no predicted quantity is constructed from the value it is said to predict. The guided-backpropagation and SHAP rankings are therefore empirical findings conditional on the chosen ground truth rather than equivalences to the paper's inputs. The remaining concerns, such as whether threshold transfer from [22] is valid for the PPMI images and whether striatal overlap is the right definition of interpretation fidelity, are threats to validity and correctness, not circularity. Citations are to external prior work and are not load-bearing self-citations. Accordingly, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the formal circularity patterns considered.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical comparison rather than a theoretical derivation, so the ledger lists the evaluation choices the conclusions rest on: the segmentation thresholds, the top-k binarization, and the assumption that overlap with striatal uptake measures interpretation quality. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced. Training hyperparameters are shared across models and taken from prior work.

free parameters (3)
  • Ground-truth segmentation thresholds = NC mean 0.63, PD mean 0.69 (from Ref. [22])
    These mean threshold values are applied to slice-averaged SPECT images to create the striatal ground-truth masks used in all Dice and error evaluations. They are chosen from prior literature rather than fitted here, and the central ranking depends on them.
  • Attention-map binarization thresholds = Top 10% and top 1% of contribution scores
    Attention maps are thresholded at these two levels to produce binary masks for Dice and error comparison. The reported Dice values in Table IV and the qualitative conclusions depend on this choice.
  • DCNN training hyperparameters = 30 epochs, SGD momentum 0.9, learning rate 1e-4 to 1e-6, Glorot initialization
    These fixed training settings from Ref. [38] shape the learned models and therefore the attention maps; they are shared across architectures and not fitted in this paper.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The thresholded striatal segmentation is a valid ground truth for interpretation quality.
    Section III-B builds ground-truth masks from slice-averaged images using mean thresholds from Ref. [22] and uses them to score every interpretation method. If a model's true reasoning does not align with this anatomical outline, the Dice-based ranking may not measure interpretation fidelity.
  • domain assumption The mean thresholds from Ref. [22] transfer to the PPMI subjects used here.
    The authors apply the mean thresholds (0.63 for NC, 0.69 for PD) without recalibrating them for this cohort, ignoring the reported standard deviations of 0.04 and 0.05.
  • domain assumption Dice coefficient on binarized top-k attention maps is an appropriate measure of interpretation quality.
    Section III-C reduces each attention map to binary masks at the top 10% and 1% of contribution scores and then compares them to the segmentation with Dice and mean error, which assumes that top-k overlap with the striatum is the relevant measure.
  • domain assumption The four DCNN models are similar enough in classification performance for interpretation quality to be a meaningful tie-breaker.
    Section II-C states the architectures were chosen so that classification performance is not significantly different; the McNemar test shows no significant difference, but AUC values range from 0.980 to 0.987.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Parkinson's Disease Recognition Using SPECT Image and Interpretable AI: A Tutorial." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T7AUXKPW

@misc{pith2026190811199,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Parkinson's Disease Recognition Using SPECT Image and Interpretable AI: A Tutorial},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T7AUXKPW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11199}
}
read the original abstract

In the past few years, there are several researches on Parkinson's disease (PD) recognition using single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) images with deep learning (DL) approach. However, the DL model's complexity usually results in difficult model interpretation when used in clinical. Even though there are multiple interpretation methods available for the DL model, there is no evidence of which method is suitable for PD recognition application. This tutorial aims to demonstrate the procedure to choose a suitable interpretation method for the PD recognition model. We exhibit four DCNN architectures as an example and introduce six well-known interpretation methods. Finally, we propose an evaluation method to measure the interpretation performance and a method to use the interpreted feedback for assisting in model selection. The evaluation demonstrates that the guided backpropagation and SHAP interpretation methods are suitable for PD recognition methods in different aspects. Guided backpropagation has the best ability to show fine-grained importance, which is proven by the highest Dice coefficient and lowest mean square error. On the other hand, SHAP can generate a better quality heatmap at the uptake depletion location, which outperforms other methods in discriminating the difference between PD and NC subjects. Shortly, the introduced interpretation methods can contribute to not only the PD recognition application but also to sensor data processing in an AI Era (interpretable-AI) as feedback in constructing well-suited deep learning architectures for specific applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11199 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Structure of PD-Net and Deep PD Net used as examples in this tutorial with the details of the size and number of convolution and max￾pooling filters. The PD Net has been modified in the last convolution layer so that the image from the database can be used directly without the need for zero-padding. applying SBR to SVM gives very high accuracy [21]; there￾fore, we will use this classification method as a baseline fo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. ROC curve for each model. the improvement of the specificity from 93% to 97% of the Deep PD Net model. McNemar’s test [49] was used to compare between SVM and DCNN models, and the p-value from this test can not reveal any statistical difference in the classification perfor￾mance. Thus, we further investigate the ROC curve as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example of slice averaging SPECT image (left figure) and the attention map (right table) from Deep PD Net model for (a) NC and (b) PD. The red line is the segmented line generated from the mean threshold reported in Ref. 22. The first row of the right table shows the original map. The second and the third row shows the binary map generated from the top 10% of contribution score and the top 1% contribution score. … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Boxplots of Dice coefficient in different interpretation methods from the top 1% of contribution score for (a) PD Net (b) PD Net + Batch Norm (c) Deep PD Net and (d) Deep PD Net + Batch Norm. Median is the line that locates inside the box, and black dots represent outl…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The mean segmented image (left) and mean absolute error plot (right table) for (a) NC group and (b) PD group. The mean absolute error was calculated using the binary image from the top 1% contribution pixels to compare with the binary image from the segmented image [P…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The mean segmented image (left) and mean segmented heatmap (right table) for (a) NC group and (b) PD group. The mean segmented heatmap was generated using the mean of binary images from the top 1% contribution pixels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The flow chart for the interpretation method application for assisting in model evaluation. [4] K. Badiavas, E. Molyvda, I. Iakovou, M. Tsolaki, K. Psarrakos, and N. Karatzas, “SPECT imaging evaluation in movement disorders: far beyond visual assessment,” European Jour…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    High-accuracy classification of Parkinson’s disease through shape analysis and surface fitting in 123i-ioflupane SPECT imaging,

    R. Prashanth, S. D. Roy, P. K. Mandal, and S. Ghosh, “High-accuracy classification of Parkinson’s disease through shape analysis and surface fitting in 123i-ioflupane SPECT imaging,” IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics , vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 794–802, May 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [1]

    Missing pieces in the Parkinson’s disease puzzle,

    J. A. Obeso, M. C. Rodriguez-Oroz, C. G. Goetz, C. Marin, J. H. Kordower, M. Rodriguez, E. C. Hirsch, M. Farrer, A. H. V . Schapira, and G. Halliday, “Missing pieces in the Parkinson’s disease puzzle,” Nature Medicine, vol. 16, pp. 653–661, 2010

    work page 2010

  3. [2]

    Non-motor symptoms of Parkin- son’s disease: dopaminergic pathophysiology and treatment,

    K. R. Chaudhuri and A. H. Schapira, “Non-motor symptoms of Parkin- son’s disease: dopaminergic pathophysiology and treatment,”The Lancet Neurology, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 464 – 474, 2009

    work page 2009

  4. [3]

    SNM practice guideline for dopamine transporter imaging with 123I-Ioflupane SPECT 1.0,

    D. S. Djang, M. J. Janssen, N. Bohnen, J. Booij, T. A. Henderson, K. Herholz, S. Minoshima, C. C. Rowe, O. Sabri, J. Seibyl, B. N. Van Berckel, and M. Wanner, “SNM practice guideline for dopamine transporter imaging with 123I-Ioflupane SPECT 1.0,”Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 154–163, 2012. 10 IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL, VOL. XX, NO. XX, XXXX ...

    work page 2012

  5. [4]

    SPECT imaging evaluation in movement disorders: far beyond visual assessment,

    K. Badiavas, E. Molyvda, I. Iakovou, M. Tsolaki, K. Psarrakos, and N. Karatzas, “SPECT imaging evaluation in movement disorders: far beyond visual assessment,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 764–773, 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [5]

    Comparison of machine learning and semi-quantification algorithms for (I123)FP-CIT classification: the beginning of the end for semi-quantification?

    J. C. Taylor and J. W. Fenner, “Comparison of machine learning and semi-quantification algorithms for (I123)FP-CIT classification: the beginning of the end for semi-quantification?” EJNMMI Physics, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 29, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [6]

    Deep learning,

    Y . LeCun, Y . Bengio, and G. Hinton, “Deep learning,”Nature, vol. 521, pp. 436–444, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [7]

    Goodfellow, Y

    I. Goodfellow, Y . Bengio, and A. Courville,Deep Learning. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2016

    work page 2016

Show all 59 references
  1. [8]

    Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat’s visual cortex,

    D. H. Hubel and T. N. Wiesel, “Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat’s visual cortex,” The Journal of Physiology, vol. 160, no. 1, pp. 106–154, 1962

    1962

  2. [9]

    Deep neural networks rival the representation of primate IT cortex for core visual object recognition,

    C. F. Cadieu, H. Hong, D. L. K. Yamins, N. Pinto, D. Ardila, E. A. Solomon, N. J. Majaj, and J. J. DiCarlo, “Deep neural networks rival the representation of primate IT cortex for core visual object recognition,” PLOS Computational Biology , vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 1–18, 12 2014

    2014

  3. [10]

    A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis,

    G. Litjens, T. Kooi, B. E. Bejnordi, A. A. A. Setio, F. Ciompi, M. Ghafoorian, J. A. van der Laak, B. van Ginneken, and C. I. S ´anchez, “A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis,” Medical Image Analysis, vol. 42, pp. 60 – 88, 2017

    2017

  4. [11]

    Biomedical imaging and analysis in the age of big data and deep learning [scanning the issue],

    J. S. Duncan, M. F. Insana, and N. Ayache, “Biomedical imaging and analysis in the age of big data and deep learning [scanning the issue],” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 108, no. 1, pp. 3–10, Jan 2020

    2020

  5. [12]

    Con- volutional neural networks for neuroimaging in Parkinson’s disease: Is preprocessing needed?

    F. J. Martinez-Murcia, J. M. G ´orriz, J. Ram ´ırez, and A. Ortiz, “Con- volutional neural networks for neuroimaging in Parkinson’s disease: Is preprocessing needed?” International Journal of Neural Systems, vol. 28, no. 10, p. 1850035, 2018

    2018

  6. [13]

    G. Ras, M. van Gerven, and P. Haselager, Explanation Methods in Deep Learning: Users, Values, Concerns and Challenges . Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 19–36

    2018

  7. [14]

    Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks,

    A. Esteva, B. Kuprel, R. A. Novoa, J. Ko, S. M. Swetter, H. M. Blau, and S. Thrun, “Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks,” Nature, vol. 542, pp. 115–118, Jan 2017

    2017

  8. [15]

    An explainable deep-learning algorithm for the detection of acute intracranial haemorrhage from small datasets,

    H. Lee, S. Yune, M. Mansouri, M. Kim, S. H. Tajmir, C. E. Guerrier, S. A. Ebert, S. R. Pomerantz, J. M. Romero, S. Kamalian, R. G. Gon- zalez, M. H. Lev, and S. Do, “An explainable deep-learning algorithm for the detection of acute intracranial haemorrhage from small datasets,...

    2019

  9. [16]

    Interpretable convolutional neural network through layer-wise relevance propagation for machine fault diagnosis,

    J. Grezmak, J. Zhang, P. Wang, K. A. Loparo, and R. X. Gao, “Interpretable convolutional neural network through layer-wise relevance propagation for machine fault diagnosis,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 3172–3181, 2020

    2020

  10. [17]

    Gait spatiotemporal signal analysis for parkinson’s disease detection and severity rating,

    A. S. Alharthi, A. J. Casson, and K. B. Ozanyan, “Gait spatiotemporal signal analysis for parkinson’s disease detection and severity rating,” IEEE Sensors Journal , vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 1838–1848, 2021

    2021

  11. [18]

    Toward a fully automated artificial pancreas system using a bioinspired reinforcement learning design: In silico validation,

    S. Lee, J. Kim, S. W. Park, S. M. Jin, and S. M. Park, “Toward a fully automated artificial pancreas system using a bioinspired reinforcement learning design: In silico validation,” IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 536–546, 2021

    2021

  12. [19]

    Comparison of two neural network clas- sifiers in the differential diagnosis of essential tremor and Parkinson’s disease by (123)I-FP-CIT brain SPECT,

    B. Palumbo, M. L. Fravolini, S. Nuvoli, A. Spanu, K. S. Paulus, O. Schillaci, and G. Madeddu, “Comparison of two neural network clas- sifiers in the differential diagnosis of essential tremor and Parkinson’s disease by (123)I-FP-CIT brain SPECT,” European Journal of Nuclear Med...

    2010

  13. [20]

    Diagnostic accuracy of parkinson dis- ease by support vector machine (SVM) analysis of (123)I-FP-CIT brain SPECT data: Implications of putaminal findings and age,

    B. Palumbo, M. L. Fravolini, T. Buresta, F. Pompili, N. Forini, P. Nigro, P. Calabresi, and N. Tambasco, “Diagnostic accuracy of parkinson dis- ease by support vector machine (SVM) analysis of (123)I-FP-CIT brain SPECT data: Implications of putaminal findings and age,” Medicine...

    2014

  14. [21]

    Automatic clas- sification and prediction models for early Parkinson’s disease diagnosis from SPECT imaging,

    R. Prashanth, S. D. Roy, P. K. Mandal, and S. Ghosh, “Automatic clas- sification and prediction models for early Parkinson’s disease diagnosis from SPECT imaging,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 3333 – 3342, 2014

    2014

  15. [23]

    CADA—computer-aided DaTSCAN analysis,

    A. Augimeri, A. Cherubini, G. L. Cascini, D. Galea, M. E. Caligiuri, G. Barbagallo, G. Arabia, and A. Quattrone, “CADA—computer-aided DaTSCAN analysis,” EJNMMI Physics, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 4, Feb 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    Texture features based detection of Parkinson’s dis- ease on datscan images,

    F. J. Mart ´ınez-Murcia, J. M. G ´orriz, J. Ram ´ırez, I. A. Ill ´an, and C. G. Puntonet, “Texture features based detection of Parkinson’s dis- ease on datscan images,” in Natural and Artificial Computation in Engineering and Medical Applications , J. M. Ferr ´andez Vicente, J....

    2013

  17. [25]

    Automatic classification of I- 123-FP-CIT (DaTSCAN) SPECT images,

    D. J. Towey, P. G. Bain, and K. S. Nijran, “Automatic classification of I- 123-FP-CIT (DaTSCAN) SPECT images,” Nucl Med Commun, vol. 32, 2011

    2011

  18. [26]

    Automatic detection of parkinsonism using significance measures and component analysis in datscan imaging,

    F. Mart ´ınez-Murcia, J. G ´orriz, J. Ram ´ırez, I. Ill ´an, and A. Ortiz, “Automatic detection of parkinsonism using significance measures and component analysis in datscan imaging,” Neurocomputing, vol. 126, pp. 58 – 70, 2014

    2014

  19. [27]

    Improved parkinsonism diagnosis using a partial least squares based approach,

    F. Segovia, J. M. G ´orriz, J. Ram´ırez, I. ´Alvarez, J. M. Jim ´enez-Hoyuela, and S. J. Ortega, “Improved parkinsonism diagnosis using a partial least squares based approach,” Medical Physics , vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 4395– 4403, 2012

    2012

  20. [28]

    Application of empirical mode decomposition (emd) on datscan SPECT images to explore parkinson disease,

    A. Rojas, J. G ´orriz, J. Ram ´ırez, I. Ill´an, F. Mart ´ınez-Murcia, A. Ortiz, M. G. R ´ıo, and M. Moreno-Caballero, “Application of empirical mode decomposition (emd) on datscan SPECT images to explore parkinson disease,” Expert Systems with Applications , vol. 40, no. 7, pp...

    2013

  21. [29]

    Improvement of classification performance of Parkinson’s disease using shape features for machine learning on dopamine transporter single photon emission computed tomography,

    T. Shiiba, Y . Arimura, M. Nagano, T. Takahashi, and A. Takaki, “Improvement of classification performance of Parkinson’s disease using shape features for machine learning on dopamine transporter single photon emission computed tomography,” PLOS ONE , vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 01 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Automatic assistance to Parkinson’s disease diagnosis in datscan SPECT imaging,

    I. A. Ill ´an, J. M. G ´orriz, J. Ram´ırez, F. Segovia, J. M. Jim´enez-Hoyuela, and S. J. Ortega Lozano, “Automatic assistance to Parkinson’s disease diagnosis in datscan SPECT imaging,” Medical Physics, vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 5971–5980, 2012

    2012

  23. [31]

    Computer-aided diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease based on [123 I]FP-CIT SPECT binding poten- tial images, using the voxels-as-features approach and support vector machines,

    F. P. M. Oliveira and M. Castelo-Branco, “Computer-aided diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease based on [123 I]FP-CIT SPECT binding poten- tial images, using the voxels-as-features approach and support vector machines,” Journal of Neural Engineering , vol. 12, no. 2, p. 026008, 2015

    2015

  24. [32]

    V oxel-based logistic analysis of PPMI control and Parkinson’s disease datscans,

    H. D. Tagare, C. DeLorenzo, S. Chelikani, L. Saperstein, and R. K. Ful- bright, “V oxel-based logistic analysis of PPMI control and Parkinson’s disease datscans,” NeuroImage, vol. 152, pp. 299 – 311, 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    Machine learning interface for medical image analysis,

    Y . C. Zhang and A. C. Kagen, “Machine learning interface for medical image analysis,” Journal of Digital Imaging, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 615–621, Oct 2017. AUTHOR et al.: PREPARATION OF PAPERS FOR IEEE TRANSACTIONS AND JOURNALS (FEBRUARY 2017) 13

    2017

  26. [34]

    DatScan SPECT image processing methods for calculation of striatal binding ratio (SBR),

    G. Wisniewski, J. Seibyl, and K. Marek, “DatScan SPECT image processing methods for calculation of striatal binding ratio (SBR),” Institute for Neurodegenerative Disorders (IND), Tech. Rep., 2013

    2013

  27. [35]

    Computer-aided diagnosis of parkinson’s disease based on [123i] fp-cit spect binding potential images, using the voxels-as-features approach and support vector machines,

    F. P. Oliveira and M. Castelo-Branco, “Computer-aided diagnosis of parkinson’s disease based on [123i] fp-cit spect binding potential images, using the voxels-as-features approach and support vector machines,” Journal of neural engineering , vol. 12, no. 2, p. 026008, 2015

    2015

  28. [36]

    Extraction, selection and comparison of features for an effective automated computer-aided diagnosis of parkinson’s disease based on [123 i] fp-cit spect images,

    F. P. Oliveira, D. B. Faria, D. C. Costa, M. Castelo-Branco, and J. M. R. Tavares, “Extraction, selection and comparison of features for an effective automated computer-aided diagnosis of parkinson’s disease based on [123 i] fp-cit spect images,” European journal of nuclear me...

    2018

  29. [37]

    A 3d con- volutional neural network approach for the diagnosis of parkinson’s disease,

    F. J. Martinez-Murcia, A. Ortiz, J. M. G ´orriz, J. Ram ´ırez, F. Segovia, D. Salas-Gonzalez, D. Castillo-Barnes, and I. A. Ill ´an, “A 3d con- volutional neural network approach for the diagnosis of parkinson’s disease,” in Natural and Artificial Computation for Biomedicine an...

    2017

  30. [38]

    Refining diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease with deep learning-based interpretation of dopamine transporter imaging,

    H. Choi, S. Ha, H. J. Im, S. H. Paek, and D. S. Lee, “Refining diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease with deep learning-based interpretation of dopamine transporter imaging,” NeuroImage: Clinical, vol. 16, pp. 586 – 594, 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    Automatic classification of dopamine transporter spect: deep convolutional neural networks can be trained to be robust with respect to variable image characteristics,

    M. Wenzel, F. Milletari, J. Kr ¨uger, C. Lange, M. Schenk, I. Apostolova, S. Klutmann, M. Ehrenburg, and R. Buchert, “Automatic classification of dopamine transporter spect: deep convolutional neural networks can be trained to be robust with respect to variable image characteri...

    2019

  32. [40]

    Parkinson’s disease detection using isosurfaces- based features and convolutional neural networks,

    A. Ortiz, J. Munilla, M. Mart ´ınez-Iba˜nez, J. M. G ´orriz, J. Ram ´ırez, and D. Salas-Gonzalez, “Parkinson’s disease detection using isosurfaces- based features and convolutional neural networks,” Frontiers in neuroin- formatics, vol. 13, p. 48, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    An easy-to-use deep-learning model for highly accurate diagnosis of parkinson’s disease using spect images,

    F. Mohammed, X. He, and Y . Lin, “An easy-to-use deep-learning model for highly accurate diagnosis of parkinson’s disease using spect images,” Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics, vol. 87, p. 101810, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift,

    S. Ioffe and C. Szegedy, “Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift,” Preprint in arXiv:1502.03167, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Use of deep convolutional neural networks to predict parkinson’s disease progression from datscan spect images,

    I. Klyuzhin, N. Shenkov, A. Rahmim, and V . Sossi, “Use of deep convolutional neural networks to predict parkinson’s disease progression from datscan spect images,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine , vol. 59, no. supplement 1, pp. 29–29, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://jnm.snmjo...

    2018

  36. [44]

    Parkinson’s disease detection using isosurfaces- based features and convolutional neural networks,

    A. Ortiz, J. Munilla, M. Mart ´ınez-Iba˜nez, J. M. G ´orriz, J. Ram´ırez, and D. Salas-Gonzalez, “Parkinson’s disease detection using isosurfaces- based features and convolutional neural networks,” Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, vol. 13, p. 48, 2019. [Online]. Available: https...

    2019

  37. [45]

    The parkinson progression marker initiative (PPMI),

    K. Marek et al., “The parkinson progression marker initiative (PPMI),” Progress in Neurobiology, vol. 95, no. 4, pp. 629 – 635, 2011

    2011

  38. [46]

    F. Chollet. (2015) Keras. [Online]. Available: https://keras.io/

    2015

  39. [47]

    TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on hetero- geneous distributed systems,

    M. Abadi et al., “TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on hetero- geneous distributed systems,” Preprint in arXiv:1603.04467 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks,

    X. Glorot and Y . Bengio, “Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks,” in Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Y . W. Teh and M. Titter- i...

    2010

  41. [49]

    Approximate statistical tests for comparing supervised classification learning algorithms,

    T. G. Dietterich, “Approximate statistical tests for comparing supervised classification learning algorithms,” Neural Computation, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 1895–1923, 1998

    1923

  42. [50]

    Learning important fea- tures through propagating activation differences,

    A. Shrikumar, P. Greenside, and A. Kundaje, “Learning important fea- tures through propagating activation differences,” in Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 70. International Convention Cen...

    2017

  43. [51]

    Deep inside convolutional networks: Visualising image classification models and saliency maps,

    K. Simonyan, A. Vedaldi, and A. Zisserman, “Deep inside convolutional networks: Visualising image classification models and saliency maps,” Preprint in arXiv:1312.6034 , 2013

    2013 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Striving for simplicity: The all convolutional net,

    J. T. Springenberg, A. Dosovitskiy, T. Brox, and M. Riedmiller, “Striving for simplicity: The all convolutional net,” Preprint in arXiv:1412.6806 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Learning deep features for discriminative localization,

    B. Zhou, A. Khosla, A. Lapedriza, A. Oliva, and A. Torralba, “Learning deep features for discriminative localization,” in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2016, pp. 2921–2929

    2016

  46. [54]

    Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization,

    R. R. Selvaraju, M. Cogswell, A. Das, R. Vedantam, D. Parikh, and D. Batra, “Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization,” in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , Oct 2017, pp. 618–626

    2017

  47. [55]

    A unified approach to interpreting model predictions,

    S. M. Lundberg and S.-I. Lee, “A unified approach to interpreting model predictions,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30, I. Guyon, U. V . Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, Eds. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017, pp. 4765–4774

    2017

  48. [56]

    An unexpected unity among methods for interpreting model predictions,

    S. Lundberg and S. Lee, “An unexpected unity among methods for interpreting model predictions,” Preprint in arXiv:1611.07478 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  49. [57]

    On pixel-wise explanations for non-linear classifier deci- sions by layer-wise relevance propagation,

    S. Bach, A. Binder, G. Montavon, F. Klauschen, K.-R. M ¨uller, and W. Samek, “On pixel-wise explanations for non-linear classifier deci- sions by layer-wise relevance propagation,” PLOS ONE, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 1–46, 07 2015

    2015

  50. [58]

    Deep convolutional neural networks for image classification: A comprehensive review,

    W. Rawat and Z. Wang, “Deep convolutional neural networks for image classification: A comprehensive review,” Neural Computation , vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 2352–2449, 2017

    2017

  51. [59]

    Incorporating deep learning with convolutional neural networks and position specific scoring matrices for identifying electron transport proteins,

    N.-Q.-K. Le, Q.-T. Ho, and Y .-Y . Ou, “Incorporating deep learning with convolutional neural networks and position specific scoring matrices for identifying electron transport proteins,” Journal of Computational Chemistry, vol. 38, no. 23, pp. 2000–2006, 2017

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.