MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4410379140 · doi:10.1002/mdc3.70072

Reply: To See the Telemedicine Forest for Its Multicultural Trees. Comment on: In‐Home Remote Assessment of the <scp>MDS</scp>‐<scp>UPDRS</scp> Part <scp>III</scp>: Multi‐Cultural Development and Validation of a Guide for Patients

2025· letter· en· W4410379140 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Michelle Hyczy de Siqueira Tosin, Álvaro Sánchez‐Ferro, Ruey‐Meei Wu, Beatriz Guitton Renaud Baptista de Oliveira, Marco Antônio Araújo Leite, Pablo Rábano Suárez, Christopher G. Goetz, Pablo Martínez‐Martín, Glenn T. Stebbins, Tiago Mestre

Notice bibliographique

RevueMovement Disorders Clinical Practice · 2025
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Établissements canadiensOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Organismes subventionnairesDystonia CoalitionNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institutes of HealthNational Science and Technology CouncilNational Taiwan UniversityFundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de JaneiroConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoNeurocrine BiosciencesUltragenyx PharmaceuticalNIH Clinical CenterCleveland Clinic FoundationParkinson CanadaSunovionCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchIpsenInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIRush UniversityMichael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's ResearchBoston Scientific CorporationCleveland ClinicInternational Parkinson and Movement Disorder SocietyPfizerBiogenFondation Brain CanadaAdamas PharmaceuticalsParkinson's FoundationGenentechUniversity of OxfordCHDI FoundationNational Taiwan University HospitalU.S. Department of Defense
Mots-clésTelemedicineMulticulturalismPsychologyInternet privacyComputer scienceHealth carePolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

We appreciate the letter from Goraieb et al.1 that shares the results of their study evaluating telemedicine use in Brazil and the various educational, social, and economic factors that may impact its use.2 The article's findings highlight the potential of telemedicine in movement disorders and how the “In-Home Remote Assessment of the MDS-UPDRS Part III” can enhance its utilization. We developed a culturally sensitive, quasi-universal guide for the Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) part III in-home remote assessment that can be used in as many regions of the globe as possible. Goraieb et al.1 highlight that telemedicine offers significant cost savings, including reducing transportation and meal expenses and indirect savings related to caregiving. These financial benefits can help alleviate the burden associated with traditional in-person consultations. However, it is crucial to recognize that, depending on the social-cultural context, patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) may still prefer face-to-face medical visits,3 as observed at our Taiwan site. Additionally, telemedicine may not be suitable for managing all movement disorders.4 Beyond resource limitations, telemedicine can offer flexibility for patients and clinicians who choose it as a means of care. Personalized care decisions based on a direct view of the patient's home environment is a particular feature of this technology. Telemedicine's adaptability is particularly relevant in some countries, where potential restrictions on telemedicine coverage may impact access to remote care5 and prevent a portion of the population from accessing quality and standardized healthcare. Apart from these considerations, we hope the MDS-UPDRS Part III In-Home Remote Assessment Guide, available through the MDS, becomes a valuable tool for optimizing global care delivery in PD. By providing standardized guidance to patients when being examined remotely, the guide strengthens telemedicine's role in bridging healthcare gaps and enhancing patient outcomes, aligning with the MDS's mission. (1) Research project: A. Conception, B. Organization, C. Execution; (2) Statistical Analysis: A. Design, B. Execution, C. Review and Critique; (3) Manuscript: A. Writing of the First Draft, B. Review and Critique. M.H.S.T.: 1A, 1B, 1C, 3A A.S.F.: 3B R.M.W.U.: 3B B.G.R.B.O.: 3B M.M.M.L.: 3B P.R.S.: 3B C.G.G.: 3B P.M.M.: 3B G.T.S.: 3B T.A.M.: 1A, 1B, 1C, 3A The Rush Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorder Program is a designated Parkinson's Foundation Clinical Center of Excellence. Ethical Compliance Statement: The authors confirm that the approval of an institutional review board was not required for this work. Informed consent is not applicable. We confirm that we have read the Journal's position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this work complies with its guidelines. Funding Sources and Conflict of Interest: No specific funding was received for this work. The authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this work. Financial Disclosures for the previous 12 months: M.H.S.T. Salary—Rush University; Professional Societies: working group supported by the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society. A.S.F. received grants or contracts from ERA-NET Horizon 2020 program JPCOFUND2 (reference number HESOCARE-329-073) and Instituto de Salud Carlos III (reference number P122/01177); consulting fees from AbbVie, Boston Scientific, ESTEVE, Orion Pharma, Prim and Roche; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, Bayer, ESTEVE, MDS Society, EAN, Novartis, Monitor, Organon, Roche, SEN, Stada, Teva, and Zambon. R.M.W.U. received a grant for research from the National Science and Technology Council of Taiwan; a salary from the National Taiwan University Hospital and National Taiwan University; and received honoraria from the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society for activities during the International Congress 2022 and 2023. B.G.R.B.O. received grants and research from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and the Research Support Foundation of the State of Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) and salary from Fluminense Federal University. M.M.M.L. received salary from Fluminense Federal University. P.R.S. has received speaker honoraria from Bial, Ipsen, Stada, and Zambon and research grants from the MDS Society (e-Diary Project). C.G.G. received consulting or Advisory Board Membership with honoraria from Genentech, Psychogenics, CSG Health Group, and CHDI; received grants/research funding to Rush University Medical Center from NIH, Department of Defense, UO1 funding from NIDDK, the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society, and The Michael J. Fox Foundation for research conducted by C.G.G.; received honoraria from the Faculty and Program Management stipend from the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society and Volume Editor stipend from Elsevier Publishers; received royalties from Elsevier Publishers, Wolters Kluwer, and Oxford University Press; received salary from Rush University Medical Center. P.M.M. has nothing to declare. G.T.S. reports consulting and advisory board membership with honoraria from Acadia, Pharmaceuticals, Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Ceregene, CHDI Management, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Ingenix Pharmaceutical Services (i3 Research), MedGenesis Therapeutix, Neurocrine Biosciences, Pfizer, Tools-4-Patients, Ultragenyx, and the Sunshine Care Foundation; received grants and research from the National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, Dystonia Coalition, CHDI, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society, and CBD Solutions. G.T.S. reports honoraria from the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society, the American Academy of Neurology, The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the Alzheimer's Association; received a salary from Rush University Medical Center. T.A.M. had compensations for consulting and being an Advisory Board member for the following organizations: AbbVie, International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society, CHDI Foundation/Management, Sunovion, Merz, Roche, PTC therapeutics; received research grants from the following organizations: EU Joint Program–Neurodegenerative Disease Research, uOBMRI, Ontario Research Fund, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, The Michael J. Fox Foundation, Parkinson Canada, Parkinson Research Consortium, and Brain Canada.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,039
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,235
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,039
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,069
Tête enseignante GPT0,423
Écart entre enseignants0,354 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMovement Disorders Clinical PracticeMême sujetTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationTravaux en français237 207