Fatigue rating scales critique and recommendations by the Movement Disorders Society task force on rating scales for Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fatigue has been shown to be a consistent and common problem in Parkinson's disease (PD) in multiple countries and cultures. It is one of the most disabling of all symptoms, including motor dysfunction, and appears early, often predating the onset of motor symptoms. Several studies of the epidemiology of fatigue have been published, often using different scales, but few on treatment. The Movement Disorder Society (MDS) commissioned a task force to assess available clinical rating scales, critique their psychometric properties, summarize their clinical properties, and evaluate the evidence in support of their use in clinical studies in PD. Six clinical researchers reviewed all studies published in peer reviewed journals of fatigue in PD, evaluated the scales' previous use, performance parameters, and quality of validation data, if available. Scales were rated according to criteria provided by the MDS. A scale was "recommended" if it has been used in clinical studies beyond the group that developed it, has been used in PD and psychometric studies have established that it is a valid, reliable and sensitive to change in people with PD. Requiring a scale to have demonstrated sensitivity to change in PD specifically rather than in other areas in order to attain a rating of "recommended" differs from the use of this term in previous MDS task force scale reviews. "Suggested" scales failed to meet all the criteria of a "recommended" scale, usually the criterion of sensitivity to change in a study of PD. Scales were "listed" if they had been used in PD studies but had little or no psychometric data to assess. Some scales could be used both to screen for fatigue as well as to assess fatigue severity, but some were only used to assess severity. The Fatigue Severity Scale was "recommended" for both screening and severity rating. The Fatigue Assessment Inventory, an expanded version of the Fatigue severity Scale, is "suggested" for both screening and severity. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue was "recommended" for screening and "suggested" for severity. The Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory was "suggested" for screening and "recommended" for severity. The Parkinson Fatigue Scale was "recommended" for screening and "suggested" for severity rating. The Fatigue Severity Inventory was "listed" for both screening and severity. The Fatigue Impact Scale for Daily Use, an adaptation of the Fatigue Impact Scale was "listed" for screening and "suggested" for severity. Visual Analogue and Global Impression Scales are both "listed" for screening and severity. The committee concluded that current scales are adequate for fatigue studies in PD but that studies on sensitivity and specificity of the scales are still needed.
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 | 0.085 | 0.178 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
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".