MDS research criteria for prodromal Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes research criteria and probability methodology for the diagnosis of prodromal PD. Prodromal disease refers to the stage wherein early symptoms or signs of PD neurodegeneration are present, but classic clinical diagnosis based on fully evolved motor parkinsonism is not yet possible. Given the lack of clear neuroprotective/disease-modifying therapy for prodromal PD, these criteria were developed for research purposes only. The criteria are based upon the likelihood of prodromal disease being present with probable prodromal PD defined as ≥80% certainty. Certainty estimates rely upon calculation of an individual's risk of having prodromal PD, using a Bayesian naïve classifier. In this methodology, a previous probability of prodromal disease is delineated based upon age. Then, the probability of prodromal PD is calculated by adding diagnostic information, expressed as likelihood ratios. This diagnostic information combines estimates of background risk (from environmental risk factors and genetic findings) and results of diagnostic marker testing. In order to be included, diagnostic markers had to have prospective evidence documenting ability to predict clinical PD. They include motor and nonmotor clinical symptoms, clinical signs, and ancillary diagnostic tests. These criteria represent a first step in the formal delineation of early stages of PD and will require constant updating as more information becomes available.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".