Quantification of the UPDRS rigidity scale
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.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".