The Relationship Between the Grooved Pegboard Test and Clinical Motor Symptom Evaluation Across the Spectrum of Parkinson's Disease Severity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) is the gold standard for assessing Parkinsonian symptoms, yet objective outcome measures are needed to complement the UPDRS in research and clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between performance on the Grooved Pegboard Test (GP) and clinical assessment of Parkinson's motor symptoms with the UPDRS. METHODS: A large sample of individuals with Parkinson's disease (n = 191) were assessed with the GP and UPDRS motor section. The GP was separated into a place (more representative of visuospatial accuracy) and remove phase (general representation of motor speed and bradykinesia). Both tests were completed at peak anti-parkinsonian medication levels, and UPDRS subscores were calculated to represent upper-limb control, rigidity, bradykinesia, and tremor. A subsequent correlation analysis was completed. RESULTS: The strongest relationships were between the GP place phase (both limbs) and total UPDRS motor score (affected: r = 0.604, less-affected: r = 0.587), upper-limb control (affected: r = 0.367, less-affected: r = 0.426), rigidity (affected: r = 0.479, less-affected: r = 0.457) and body bradykinesia (affected: r = 0.375, less-affected: r = 0.438). The GP remove phase had weak positive relationships with total UPDRS scores (affected: r = 0.31, less-affected r = 0.31) and body bradykinesia (r = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical assessment of upper-limb control, rigidity and bradykinesia are well represented by the GP place phase. Interestingly, it appeared that GP performance of the more affected limb may be more representative of motor severity in the early stages of disease, while more research is needed to understand the utility of the GP in the advanced stages of disease.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".