Fig. 6: Differences in kinematic parameters and overall efficacy between AMAN and CLZ administration. | npj Parkinson's Disease

Fig. 6: Differences in kinematic parameters and overall efficacy between AMAN and CLZ administration.

From: A spatiotemporal hypergraph self-attention neural networks framework for the identification and pharmacological efficacy assessment of Parkinson’s disease motor symptoms

Fig. 6

A PMF curves of five kinematic parameters (Ⅰ, speed back; Ⅱ, body length; Ⅲ, body height; Ⅳ, body angle; Ⅴ, body angular velocity) after AMAN and CLZ administration. Bold traces and shaded areas represent mean ± SEM. (****p < 0.0001, ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, Bonferroni correction). B Classification of behavioral outcomes 180 min after AMAN and CLZ administration using SVM in the PC4 and PC5 plane. C Statistics of AMAN and CLZ administration. Projection values calculated by projecting the points in Fig B onto the decision boundary (p = 0.00216, Mann–Whitney test). D Classification of behavioral outcomes 180 min after AMAN and CLZ administration and the LID group using SVM in the PC3 and PC5 plane. E Comparison statistics of AMAN and CLZ administration with the LID group. Projection values calculated by projecting the points in Fig D onto the decision boundary (Ⅰ, AMAN vs. LID, p = 0.00022; Ⅱ, CLZ vs. LID, p = 0.00129; Mann–Whitney test).

Back to article page