Abstract:To the Editor: Parkinson's disease (PD) is one of the most common neurodegenerative movement disorders.[1] Its cardinal symptoms include bradykinesia, tremor, and rigidity.[2] The severity of PD-related motor symptoms is usually semiquantitatively evaluated by the Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS)[3] part three (MDS-UPDRS III). A series of machine perception and machine learning technologies have been applied to assist the manual rating of motor symptoms.[4,5] Machine vision, which does not require physical contact between the examiner and the patient, has the potential for real-world application in remote assessments.[5] Bradykinesia and tremor have been investigated through machine vision previously,[5] but the possibility of rigidity assessment through machine vision has not been explored. For rigidity assessment, the examiner needs to touch the patient, move the limbs, and score the severity of symptom by feeling muscle tone abnormalities. There is an urgent need for contactless evaluation of rigidity through digitally based telemedicine. Rigidity was shown to be correlated with bradykinesia in previous studies.[5] We hypothesized that motions reflecting bradykinesia might provide information that can be used in the evaluation of rigidity. Here, we explored the possibility of contactless evaluation for rigidity assessment in PD using machine vision and machine learning technologies. The study was approved by the Ruijin Hospital Ethics Committee (No. 2015-99). Written informed consent was obtained from each participant, including consent to the use and publication of pictures and videos.149 PD patients treated at Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine Ruijin Hospital from September 2020 to May 2021 were included in our study. See Supplementary Method 1, http://links.lww.com/CM9/B514 for details of inclusion and exclusion criteria. All patients were asked to complete motions in front of the camera [Supplementary Method 2, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B514], following the guideline of MDS-UPDRS III. Videos with subpar quality were excluded. 135 subjects were included in the final subject set for analysis. Rigidity–upper extremity (UE), Rigidity–lower extremity (LE), and Rigidity–neck were rated by an experienced neurologist at the recording site. The rating was later used as a label in modeling. Based on the aforementioned hypothesis we selected motions of bradykinesia for the UE, LE, and neck rigidity model [Supplementary Method 3, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B514]. Information captured by the camera was processed conducted by different machine vision algorithms [Supplementary Method 4, http://links.lww.com/CM9/B514], and features were extracted [Supplementary Method 5, http://links.lww.com/CM9/B514]. A total of 8903 features for Rigidity–UE, 6675 features for Rigidity–LE, and 68,315 features for Rigidity–neck were extracted. Each feature encompassed four dimensions: motion, joint, signal, and attribute.Motion represented the motions above, and was marked during video recording.Joint represented the related joints where features were extracted, and was automatically marked by deep learning structural algorithms. Signal was manually marked and was a type of original raw data before calculation. There were three types of signals including distance, area, and angle. Attribute encompassed speed, amplitude, decrement, asymmetry, variability, and complexity. Speed, amplitude, and decrement were as described in the original MDS-UPDRS III scale. Asymmetry indicated the difference between two sides. Variability and complexity were marked manually based on mathematical definition of features. Variability, such as the standard deviation and coefficient of variation, was an attribute representing the degree of dispersion during a whole test. Complexity summarized aspects that cannot be easily interpreted, including sample kurtosis, entropy, crest factor, clearance factor, etc. The algorithm of Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBOOST) was applied for feature selection and model training by using rater labels and features. Three machine rating models, Rigidity–UE, Rigidity–LE, and Rigidity–neck, were built in this process. Since few samples had a rigidity score of 4 in our study, samples that scored 4 were merged with samples that scored 3. For each model, rigidity was transformed into a four-category (0, 1, 2, and 3 & 4) classifier. Feature importance revealed by the XGBOOST model represented the contributing weights of a specific feature to the rigidity evaluation [Supplementary Table 1, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B514]. When analyzing the relationship between a specific feature and the label (rigidity score), the Spearman correlation coefficient was applied to provide detailed information, including the strength and direction of the correlation. Subjects were split into a training set and an independent evaluation set by stratified sampling based on the sum of rigidity scores. Independent validation of 23 samples was performed in our study. Three metrics were used to evaluate the model performance based on calculation between the score by the expert rater and the score by the model. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to represent the consistency. The Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ) demonstrated a correlation. ACC ± 0 was the percentage of cases with no error. It was used to represent the accuracy of the models [Supplementary Method 6, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B514]. See Supplementary Method 7, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B514 for statistical analysis, Supplementary Method 8, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B514 for data availability, and Supplementary Figure 1 for a flow chart of the entire study protocol. The sample included 1350 videos from 135 subjects. The demographic information and rigidity scores of the training set (112 patients) and independent test set (23 patients) are shown in Supplementary Table 2, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B514. There was no statistically significant discrepancy in demographic data or score distribution between the two sets. In the model of Rigidity–UE, consistency between the ratings of the model and those of expert raters achieved moderate performance (ICC = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45–0.79, P <0.01). The correlation coefficient between the ratings of the model and those of expert raters was moderate (ρ = 0.64), and the absolute accuracy was 0.65 [Supplementary Table 3, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B514]. The motion with the greatest contribution was pronation–supination movements of hands (52.3%). The second was kinetic tremor of hands (16.5%) [Figure 1A], in which the motion of pointing toward and away from the nose was utilized for feature extraction instead of the tremor itself and which encompassed information for upper extremity rigidity. Regarding the joint of feature origin, the joints designated Hand (69.1%) and HandTip (28.2%) had the largest contributions [Figure 1B]. Distance (49.7%) and angle (35.9%) contributed most to the domain of signal [Figure 1C]. Variability (35.2%) and complexity (27.4%) had the highest importance in attribute, while speed (18.4%), decrement (14.5%), and amplitude (4.5%) had less significance [Figure 1D]. In this contactless evaluation system, the movement of the distal joints of the upper extremities conveyed more information for rigidity.Figure 1: Importance of features in four dimensions: (A) motion, (B) joint, (C) signal, and (D) attribute. FT: Finger tapping; HM: Hand movements; KTOH: Kinetic tremor of hands; LA: Leg agility; LE: Lower extremity; PSOH: Pronation–supination movements of hands; PTOH: Postural tremor of hands; Rig: Rigidity; TT: Toe tapping; UE: Upper extremity.In the Rigidity–LE model, the ICC was moderate at 0.60 (95% CI: 0.39–0.76, P <0.01), the Spearman correlation coefficient was moderate at 0.58 (P <0.01), and the absolute accuracy was 0.72 [Supplementary Table 3, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B514]. Gait (55.4%) and toe tapping (41.7%) were the most prominent motions [Figure 1A]. The main contributing joint was TipToe (41.7%) [Figure 1B]. Distance (92.4%) had almost all of the importance in signals [Figure 1C]. Together, variability (34.4%) and complexity (25.1%) accounted for more than half of the contributions by attributes, consistent with the model of Rigidity–UE [Figure 1D]. One example of variability feature was "13_back_angular_velocity_var_hip2ankle_angle_feature_point_feature" from the motion of gait. This meant the variance of the angular velocity of the angle behind the knee [Supplementary Figure 2A, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B514]. Lead pipe resistance caused the joint to move slowly during walking. The angular speed was more concentrated (purple and blue, Supplementary Figure 2A, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B514); thus, the variability was smaller, which indicated more rigidity. One feature of complexity extracted from the motion of gait was "13_abs_angular_velocity_kurtisis_min_knee_y_feature_point_feature". This was the minimum kurtosis of the knee velocity in the y direction, which characterizes the tailedness of the distribution of knee-raising speed [Supplementary Figure 2B, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B514]. Supplementary Figure 2B, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B514depicted the velocity of knee raising while walking. Patients with rigidity tended to raise their knees more slowly, and the velocity was more concentrated (purple and blue), with a high peak and thin tail, as shown on the left, and thus the kurtosis was larger (6.60 and 2.17). Those with less rigidity tend to raise faster, and the velocity was more disperse (red and green) with a low peak and thick tail, as shown on the right, and the kurtosis was smaller (1.39 and 0.26). The ICC was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.40–0.86, P <0.01, moderate), the Spearman correlation coefficient was moderate at 0.67, and the absolute accuracy was 0.78 for Rigidity neck [Supplementary Table 3, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B514]. Gait (41.0%) was the most important motion of origin [Figure 1A]. HandTip (46.2%) and Hand (31.4%) had the greatest contribution in joint [Figure 1B]. Distance (80.4%) was the most important signal [Figure 1C]. Similar to the previous two models, complexity (43.6%) and variability (41.3%) had the most importance among attributes [Figure 1D]. The top 10 features with the greatest importance of each model are shown in Supplementary Table 1, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B514. Previously, rigidity was judged on slow passive movement of major joints and was defined as velocity-independent resistance to passive movement.[2] Various studies of wearable sensors have analyzed the correlation between features and rigidity scores. One study using features extracted from myotonometry for building a machine learning model had an ICC greater than 0.90.[6] Our ICC was 0.60–0.70. Previous quantitative measurements of rigidity required contact because rigidity assessment was based on passive movement. Rigidity was assessed through patients' motions by camera, eliminating the need for contact in our study. It is important to note that motions reflecting bradykinesia were used to evaluate rigidity, not bradykinesia itself. For example, the "kinetic tremor of the hands" was typically assessed using the tremor subscale. However, the motion of pointing to and away from the nose can also be useful for assessing rigidity in the upper extremities, as it reflects bradykinesia. Attributes of variability and complexity could provide more objective and comprehensive features for clinical assessments, and our present study demonstrated that machine vision had the potential to capture those elements of information and accomplish rigidity assessment. Our study had certain limitations. The samples were collected from only one movement disorder clinic. Advanced PD patients (Hohen–Yahr stage 4–5) were limited (1/135, 0.7％). The lack of samples with tremor-dominant and mixed subtypes was also a limitation. Our results had large CIs due to the small independent test set. Future multicenter studies with larger and more balanced subject pools are needed to increase the generalization and adaptability of the research results. Contactless rigidity evaluation was feasible through machine vision and machine learning. The movement distance of distal joints of the body reflected proximal joint rigidity. Variability and complexity, information specific to machine vision, were the most important factors in rigidity assessment. Future studies of a contactless rating system for PD motor symptoms have the potential to aid telemedicine. Acknowledgments The authors thank the patients for their participation in this study. Funding The present study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 82230040, 82071415 [JL], and 81971183 [YYT]) and Shanghai Jiao Tong University Trans-med Awards Research, (No. 20220103 [JL]). Conflicts of interest None.

Abstract:To the Editor: Parkinson's disease (PD) is one of the most common neurodegenerative movement disorders.[1] The severity of PD-related motor symptoms is usually semiquantitatively ("normal", "slight", "mild", "moderate", and "severe") evaluated by expert physicians according to the Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part III (MDS-UPDRS III).[2] However, the MDS-UPDRS III is semiquantitative and subjective, which might mask mild treatment effects or even provide false-positive results. Different kinds of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies and telemedicine[3,4] have been explored in patient evaluation to address the above-mentioned problems. However, items that assess rigidity based on the instruction of the MDS-UPDRS III were not included in previous studies. Five ratings for "Rigidity" (including upper extremity [UE], lower extremity [LE], and neck) and one rating for "Postural Stability" of the MDS-UPDRS III requiring physical contact between the physician and the patient cannot be performed in machine vision. Our team previously managed to construct models for rigidity evaluation based on features collected from patients' motions through machine vision,[5] which makes machine rating of the entire MDS-UPDRS III possible. A good machine-rating model of the MDS-UPDRS III can improve the accuracy, objectivity, and consistency of the evaluation of clinical symptoms and treatment efficacy. Previous studies have made remarkable achievements, but one unified method for rating the entire spectrum of MDS-UPDRS III through video has never been achieved, which largely compromises its application in clinical use. To our knowledge, the highest coverage rate of the 33 subitems of the MDS-UPDRS III in previous single studies was 45.45%.[4] Our study introduced a method based on machine vision and machine learning to achieve a machine rating of the entire MDS-UPDRS III scale for PD patients (details of study design in Supplementary Method 1, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B939). The study was approved by Ruijin Hospital Ethics Committee, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine (No. 2015-99). Written informed consent was obtained from each participant. Our study included 2610 videos from 149 PD patients (Supplementary Table 1, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B939, inclusion and exclusion criteria detailed in Supplementary Method 2, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B939). The distributions of each MDS-UPDRS III subitem, total score, subscale score, and the Hoehn and Yahr (H-Y) stage among the 149 subjects are shown in Supplementary Figure 1, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B939. See Supplementary Method 3, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B939 for details of technical methods (including equipment, filming process, feature engineering, modelling, and statistical analysis). Eighteen direct rating models and four indirect rating models were constructed, and the results are shown in Table 1. The 22 models covered the entire MDS-UPDRS III scale. In total, 77.8% of the rating models achieved an ACCStandard (the machine rating score equaled either score-by-rater-I or score-by-rater-II, above clinical level) reaching 80% or higher. All rating models (100%) had an ACCAbsolute (machine rating score equaled score-by-rater-final, equivalent to clinical level) reaching 70% due to its more stringent criteria. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of the 90.9% rating models was higher than 0.40 (fair). Eleven models achieved ICCs greater than 0.75 (excellent). They were "3.1 Speech", "3.3a Rigidity-Neck", "3.3c Rigidity-LE", "3.4 Finger Tapping", "3.7 Toe Tapping", "3.8 Leg Agility", "3.10 Gait", "3.12 Postural Stability", "3.14 Global Spontaneity of Movement", and "3.17c Rest Tremor Amplitude LE". Seven models had ICCs between 0.60 and 0.74 (good). They were "3.2 Facial Expression", "3.3b Rigidity-UE", "3.5 Hand Movements", "3.6 Pronation-Supination Movements of Hands", "3.11 Freezing of Gait", "3.15 Postural Tremor", and "3.18 Constancy of Rest Tremor". The ICCs of three models were at the "fair" level (0.40–0.59), including "3.13 Posture", "3.16 Kinetic Tremor", and "3.17a Rest Tremor Amplitude Lip/Jaw". The ICCs of the remaining two models ("3.9 Arising from Chair" and "3.17b Rest Tremor Amplitude UE") were at the "poor" level. Our model covered 100% of all MDS-UPDRS III subitems. Model performance varied in different models but overall demonstrated the feasibility of our model construction. Table 1 - Performance comparison of different evaluation indicators. MDS-UPDRS III ITEM ACCAbsolute ACCAcceptable ICC (95% CIs, Level) MDS-UPDRS III ITEM ACCAbsolute ACCAcceptable ICC (95% CIs, Level) 3.1 Speech 0.93 / 0.93* (0.90–0.95, Excellent) 3.10 Gait 0.88 0.90 0.80* (0.74–0.85, Excellent) 3.2 Facial Expression 0.71 0.71 0.63* (0.52–0.72, Good) 3.11 Freezing of Gait 0.94 0.96 0.74* (0.65–0.81, Excellent) 3.3a Rigidity-Neck 0.85 / 0.76* (0.68–0.83, Excellent) 3.12 Postural Stability 0.87 0.85 0.87* (0.82–0.90, Excellent) 3.3b Rigidity-UE 0.73 / 0.62* (0.54–0.69, Good) 3.13 Posture 0.70 0.74 0.54* (0.42–0.65, Fair) 3.3c Rigidity-LE 0.71 / 0.78* (0.73–0.82, Excellent) 3.14 Global Spontaneity of Movement 0.91 0.91 0.83* (0.77–0.88, Excellent) 3.4 Finger Tapping 0.73 0.71 0.78* (0.73–0.82, Excellent) 3.15 Postural Tremor 0.81 0.86 0.60* (0.51–0.67, Good) 3.5 Hand Movements 0.70 0.75 0.69* (0.62–0.74, Good) 3.16 Kinetic Tremor 0.79 0.85 0.51* (0.39–0.60, Fair) 3.6 Pronation-Supination Movements of Hands 0.76 0.80 0.73* (0.68–0.78, Good) 3.17a Rest Tremor Amplitude Lip/Jaw 0.88 0.89 0.41* (0.29–0.52, Fair) 3.7 Toe Tapping 0.78 0.80 0.79* (0.75–0.83, Excellent) 3.17b Rest Tremor Amplitude UE 0.91 0.91 0.38* (0.27–0.47, Poor) 3.8 Leg Agility 0.70 0.82 0.78* (0.73–0.82, Excellent) 3.17c Rest Tremor Amplitude LE 0.98 0.97 0.80* (0.73–0.85, Excellent) 3.9 Arising from Chair 0.75 0.82 0.28* (0.13–0.43, Poor) 3.18 Constancy of Rest Tremor 0.84 0.86 0.72* (0.63–0.79, Good) *P <0.001. ACCAbsolute: Machine rating score equaled score-by-rater-final, equivalent to clinical level; ACCAcceptable: Machine rating score equaled either score-by-rater-I or score-by-rater-II, above clinical level; CI: Confidence interval; ICC: Intraclass correlation coefficient; LE: Lower extremity; MDS-UPDRS III: Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part III; UE: Upper extremity. Four indirect rating models of the subitems "Speech" and "Rigidity" were constructed by using different model inputs [Supplementary Table 2, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B939]. The feature-based model utilized motion and signal features as inputs, while the item-based model employed the score-by-rater-final of all subitems except "Speech" and "Rigidity" as inputs. The ACCAbsolute of the feature-based model had significant advantages over the item-based model. The indirect rating models using motion and signal features as input performed better, indicating that motion and signal features carried more abundant and accurate information than the scores of the semiquantitative scale. Thus, motion and signal features had the potential to describe the severity of motor symptoms more accurately than the original scale of the MDS-UPDRS III. The performances of the adder model of the MDS-UPDRS III total score and subscale scores are shown in Supplementary Table 3, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B939. Regarding the error of the models, the mean absolute errors (MAEs) of the total score, tremor subscale score, rigidity subscale score, bradykinesia, and axial subscale score were 3.98, 1.74, 1.3, 2.18, and 0.94, respectively. The root mean square errors (RMSEs) of the corresponding models were 5.34, 2.93, 1.95, 2.81, and 1.57, respectively. Regarding the consistency of the models, four models (including the total score and the rigidity, bradykinesia, and axial subscale scores) achieved ICCs greater than 0.75 (excellent), and only the ICC of the tremor subscale score was at the level of "good" (0.69, confidence interval [CI]: 0.58–0.76). Regarding correlations, all the models exhibited greater than or equal to a "strong" correlation (greater than 0.80) between the ratings from experts and model prediction. The models with a "very strong" correlation were the model of the total score (0.93, 95% CI: 0.89–0.95) and the subscale score of bradykinesia (0.94, 95% CI: 0.91–0.96). The other three models for the subscale score (tremor, rigidity, and axial) had a correlation level of "strong". Our study explored video-based machine vision and machine learning technology for the complete machine rating of the MDS-UPDRS III and proved its feasibility. Our study had the following advantages: (1) machine rating of all 33 subitems, 4 subscales, and the total score of the MDS-UPDRS III scale based on machine vision was realized; (2) selection of features and models possessing reasonable clinical interpretability; (3) 2610 videos from 149 subjects were included to ensure the sample size and its representativeness, and (4) two different levels of evaluation criteria, "above clinical level" (ACCStandard) and "equivalent to clinical level" (ACCAbsolute), were designed to evaluate the performance of all rating models. The machine vision-based model has the potential to provide additional objective and quantitative information for clinical observations. For example, for "Protonation-Supination Movements of Hands", a neurologist could only use the MDS-UPDRS III to subjectively rate the patient's performance by counting the rhythm and roughly estimating the speed and amplitude of the patient's motion. Our model can precisely detect the halt time, speed, and amplitude (kinematic features). The minimum value of the cross-sectional area (CSA) signal (signal feature) also provided integrated information on the rhythm, speed, and amplitude undetectable by the naked eye [Supplementary Result 1, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B939]. Clinical interpretability is an important basis for the clinical application of machine learning technology. Few studies have discussed feature selection and model selection from the perspective of clinical interpretability. For direct rating models, we extracted features based on the description of the scale to make it more consistent with clinical observation. Indirect rating model features were selected from the evaluation motions of other relevant subitems. Features of "Rigidity" of limbs were extracted from other active motions involving the relevant muscle group. "Speech" and "Rigidity-Neck" did not have relevant active motion. Their severity was hypothesized to be positively correlated with disease severity, and features were extracted from all other subitems [Supplementary Result 2, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B939]. To explore the optimal classifier for the study, we compared three models, Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), ordered logistic regression (OLR), and support vector machine (SVM), and finally found that XGBoost exhibited excellent performance for multiclass classification of items on the MDS-UPDRS III [Supplementary Table 4, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B939]. Certain limitations existed in this study and warrant further attention: (1) The samples were collected from a movement disorders clinic, and the outpatient population mainly consisted of patients with mild-to-moderate stages of PD. A more balanced subject pool covering all H-Y stages could increase the generalizability of this model (Supplementary Results 3,4, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B939). (2) Our study was a single-center study. Multicenter verification is needed to expand the adaptability of the research results. (3) The ICCs of the rating models of "Arising from Chair" and "Rest Tremor Amplitude LE" were lower than 0.4. The inadequate consistency of these two models may be attributed to an insufficient number of subjects with ratings of 1, 2, 3, and 4. The extracted features cannot thoroughly represent the movement performance of subjects with more advanced symptoms. However, their ACCAbsolute values were 0.75 and 0.91, which demonstrated the feasibility of our model. In future research, we will further optimize the performance and generalization ability of rating models through multicenter research for the collection of a larger and more balanced dataset. At the same time, due to the high sensitivity of machine vision-based motion perception technology and its ability to capture spatial motion comprehensively, the technical system derived from this research is expected to build a new clinical evaluation system for motor symptoms with greater dimensions, higher precision, and finer granularity than the current scale. Acknowledgments The authors thank all the study participants and their families for their participation in this study. Conflicts of interest None.

Contactless Evaluation of Rigidity in Parkinson's Disease by Machine Vision and Machine Learning

Motor Symptom Machine Rating System for Complete MDS-UPDRS III in Parkinson's Disease: A Proof-of-concept Pilot Study.

A Wearable Multi-Segment Upper Limb Tremor Assessment System for Differential Diagnosis of Parkinson's Disease Versus Essential Tremor.

Rigidity in Parkinson's disease: evidence from biomechanical and neurophysiological measures

A novel method for systematic analysis of rigidity in Parkinson's disease

Assessment of Upper Limb Tremors in Patients with Parkinson's Disease Based on Displacement and Acceleration Information.

Quantitative Measurement of Rigidity in Parkinson´s Disease: A Systematic Review

Analysis of interactive effect of stretch reflex and shortening reaction on rigidity in Parkinson's disease

Neck rigidity: a pitfall for video head-impulse tests in Parkinson's disease

Validation of computer vision technology for analyzing bradykinesia in outpatient clinic videos of people with Parkinson's disease

Estimation of motor severity scales in Parkinson's disease by linear models of bimanual non-alternating index finger tapping features

Shear Wave Elastography Characteristics of Upper Limb Muscle in Rigidity-Dominant Parkinson's Disease

Identifying the most representative actigraphy variables reflecting standardized hand function assessments for remote monitoring in children with unilateral cerebral palsy

Quantification of neural reflex and muscular intrinsic contributions to parkinsonian rigidity

Dataset of quality assurance measurements of rhythmic movements

Predicting UPDRS Motor Symptoms in Individuals With Parkinson's Disease From Force Plates Using Machine Learning

System identification: a feasible, reliable and valid way to quantify upper limb motor impairments

Home-Based Measurements of Dystonia in Cerebral Palsy Using Smartphone-Coupled Inertial Sensor Technology and Machine Learning: A Proof-of-Concept Study

Parkinson’s Disease Rigidity: Relation to Brain Connectivity and Motor Performance

A Regression-Based Framework for Quantitative Assessment of Muscle Spasticity Using Combined EMG and Inertial Data from Wearable Sensors

Using AI to Measure Parkinson's Disease Severity at Home