Task force report on scales to assess dyskinesia in Parkinson's disease: Critique and recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drug-induced dyskinesia is a common phenomenon in Parkinson's disease (PD) and is often socially as well as physically disabling for patients. The Movement Disorders Society commissioned a task force to assess available clinical rating scales, critique their clinimetric properties, and make recommendations regarding their clinical utility. A task force composed six clinical researchers who systematically searched the literature for scales measuring dyskinesia in PD, evaluated the scales' previous use, performance parameters, and quality of validation data (if available). A scale was designated "Recommended" if the scale has been used in clinical studies beyond the group that developed it, has been specifically used in PD reports, and if clinimetric studies have established that it is a valid, reliable, and sensitive. "Suggested" scales met two of the above criteria and those meeting one were "Listed." Based on the systematic review, eight rating scales for dyskinesia that have either been validated or used in PD were identified. These were the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), The Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) part IV, the Obeso Dyskinesia Rating Scale, the Rush Dyskinesia Rating Scale, the Clinical Dyskinesia Rating Scale (CDRS), the Lang-Fahn Activities of Daily Living Dyskinesia Scale, the Parkinson Disease Dyskinesia Scale (PDYS-26), and the Unified Dyskinesia Rating Scale (UDysRS). Based on this review, at present two of the reviewed dyskinesia scales (AIMS and the Rush Dyskinesia Rating Scale) fulfill criteria for Recommended for use in PD populations, albeit weakly so; all of the remaining met criteria to be Suggested. However, the two most recent scales (PDYS-26 and UDysRS) have excellent clinimetric properties and appear to provide a reliable and valid assessment tool of dyskinesia in PD. If they are used successfully beyond the groups that developed them, both have the potential to be re-ranked as Recommended. As further testing of these scales in PD is warranted, no new scales are needed until the available scales are fully tested clinimetrically.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".