Rating scales for behavioral symptoms in Huntington's disease: Critique and recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Behavioral symptoms are an important feature of Huntington's disease and contribute to impairment in quality of life. The Movement Disorder Society commissioned the assessment of the clinimetric properties of rating scales in Huntington's disease to make recommendations regarding their use, following previously used standardized criteria. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify the scales used to assess behavioral symptoms in Huntington's disease. For the purpose of this review, 7 behavioral domains were deemed significant in Huntington's disease: irritability, anxiety, depression, apathy, obsessive-compulsive behaviors, psychosis, and suicidal ideation. We included a total of 27 behavioral rating scales, 19 of which were of a single behavioral domain and the remaining 8 scales included multiple behavioral domains. Three rating scales were classified as "recommended" exclusively for screening purposes: the Irritability Scale for irritability, the Beck Depression Inventory-II, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for depression. There were no "recommended" scales for other purposes such as diagnosis, severity, or change in time or to treatment. The main challenges identified for assessment of behavioral symptoms in Huntington's disease are the co-occurrence of multiple behavioral symptoms, the particular features of a behavioral symptom in Huntington's disease, and the need to address stage- and disease-specific features, including cognitive impairment and lack of insight. The committee concluded that there is a need to further validate currently available behavioral rating scales in Huntington's disease to address gaps in scale validation for specific behavioral domains and purpose of use. © 2016 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
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 | 0.139 | 0.286 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".