Quantification of the UPDRS rigidity scale
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the clinical setting, parkinsonian rigidity is assessed using subjective rating scales such as that of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating System (UPDRS). However, such scales are susceptible to problems of sensitivity and reliability. Here, we evaluate the reliability and validity of a device designed to quantify parkinsonian rigidity at the elbow and the wrist. The method essentially quantifies the clinical examination and employs small sensors to monitor forces and angular displacements imposed by the clinician onto the limb segment distal to the joint being evaluated. Force and displacement data are used to calculate elastic and viscous stiffnesses and their vectorial sum, mechanical impedance. Interexaminer agreement of measures of mechanical impedance in subjects with Parkinson's disease was comparable to that of clinical UPDRS scores. Examiners tended to overrate rigidity on the UPDRS scale during reinforcement manoeuvres. Mechanical impedance was nonlinearly related to UPDRS ratings of rigidity at the elbow and wrist; characterization of such relationships allows interpretation of impedance measurements in terms of the clinical rating scales.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 it