MDS Clinical Diagnostic Criteria for Parkinson's Disease (S19.001)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To present the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society (MDS) Clinical Diagnostic Criteria for Parkinson's disease. Background Although several diagnostic criteria for Parkinson's disease have been proposed, none have been officially adopted by an official Parkinson society. Moreover, the commonest-used criteria, the UK brain bank, were created more than 25 years ago. In recognition of the lack of standard criteria, the MDS initiated a task force to design new diagnostic criteria for clinical Parkinson's disease. Methods/Results The MDS-PD Criteria are intended for use in clinical research, but may also be used to guide clinical diagnosis. The benchmark is expert clinical diagnosis; the criteria aim to systematize the diagnostic process, to make it reproducible across centers and applicable by clinicians with less expertise. Although motor abnormalities remain central, there is increasing recognition of non-motor manifestations; these are incorporated into both the current criteria and particularly into separate criteria for prodromal PD. Similar to previous criteria, the MDS-PD Criteria retain motor parkinsonism as the core disease feature, defined as bradykinesia plus rest tremor and/or rigidity. Explicit instructions for defining these cardinal features are included. After documentation of parkinsonism, determination of PD as the cause of parkinsonism relies upon three categories of diagnostic features; absolute exclusion criteria (which rule out PD), red flags (which must be counterbalanced by additional supportive criteria to allow diagnosis of PD), and supportive criteria (positive features that increase confidence of PD diagnosis). Two levels of certainty are delineated: Clinically-established PD (maximizing specificity at the expense of reduced sensitivity), and Probable PD (which balances sensitivity and specificity). Conclusion The MDS criteria retain elements proven valuable in previous criteria and omit aspects that are no longer justified, thereby encapsulating diagnosis according to current knowledge. As understanding of PD expands, criteria will need continuous revision to accommodate these advances.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.017 |
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".