PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Klepachevskyi, D
AU  - Romano, A
AU  - Aristimunha, B
AU  - Angiolelli, M
AU  - Trojsi, F
AU  - Bonavita, S
AU  - Sorrentino, G
AU  - Andreone, V
AU  - Minino, R
AU  - Lopez E, Troisi
AU  - Polverino, A
AU  - Jirsa, V
AU  - Saudargienė, A
AU  - Corsi, M.-C.
AU  - Sorrentino, P
TI  - Magnetoencephalography-based interpretable automated differential diagnosis in neurodegenerative diseases
AID  - 10.1101/2024.06.17.24309023
DP  - 2024 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2024.06.17.24309023
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/17/2024.06.17.24309023.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/17/2024.06.17.24309023.full
AB  - Automating the diagnostic process steps has been of interest for research grounds and to help manage the healthcare systems. Improved classification accuracies, provided by ever more sophisticated algorithms, were mirrored by the loss of interpretability on the criteria for achieving accuracy. In other words, the mechanisms responsible for generating the distinguishing features are typically not investigated. Furthermore, the vast majority of the classification studies focus on the classification of one disease as opposed to matched controls. While this scenario has internal validity, concerning the appropriateness toward answering scientific questions, it does not have external validity. In other words, differentiating multiple diseases at once is a classification problem closer to many real-world scenarios. In this work, we test the hypothesis that specific data features hold most of the discriminative power across multiple neurodegenerative diseases. Furthermore, we perform an explorative analysis to compare metrics based on different assumptions (concerning the underlying mechanisms). To test this hypothesis, we leverage a large Magnetoencephalography dataset (N=109) merging four cohorts, recorded in the same clinical setting, of patients affected by multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, and mild cognitive impairment. Our results show that it is possible to reach a balanced accuracy of 67,1% (chance level = 35%), based on a small set of (non-disease specific) features. We show that edge metrics (defined as statistical dependencies between pairs of brain signals) perform better than nodal metrics (considering region while disregarding the interactions. Moreover, phase-based metrics slightly outperform amplitude-based metrics. In conclusion, our work shows that a small set of phase-based connectivity metrics applied to MEG data successfully distinguishes across multiple neurological diseases.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was financially supported by Ministero Sviluppo Economico (Contratto di sviluppo industriale Farmaceutica e Diagnostica [CDS 000606]); European Union NextGenerationEU,(Investimento 3.1. M4. C2), project IR0000011, EBRAINS-Italy of PNRR and Contratto di sviluppo industriale- Progetto CDS000904 - agevolazioni ex DM del 09/12/2014 Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study protocol was approved by the Comitato Etico Campania Centro (Prot.n.93C.E./Reg. n.14-17OSS)I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors