MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2614644933 · doi:10.1002/mds.27035

Application of the movement disorder society prodromal Parkinson's disease research criteria in 2 independent prospective cohorts

2017· article· en· W2614644933 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Pilotto, Sebastian Heinzel, Ulrike Suenkel, Stefanie Lerche, Kathrin Brockmann, Benjamin Röeben, Eva Schaeffer, Isabel Wurster, Rezzak Yılmaz, Inga Liepelt‐Scarfone, Anna‐Katharina von Thaler, Florian G. Metzger, Gerhard W. Eschweiler, Ron B. Postuma, Walter Maetzler, Daniela Berg

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMontreal General Hospital
FundersMichael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research
KeywordsProspective cohort studyREM sleep behavior disorderCohortHyposmiaMedicineInternal medicinePopulationMovement disordersDepression (economics)Parkinson's diseasePsychologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The research criteria for prodromal PD of the MDS propose a new approach for the assessment of the individual probability of prodromal PD. These criteria require a testing of their reliability in different prospective cohorts. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to evaluate the MDS prodromal PD criteria in 2 independent prospective studies. METHODS: Prodromal PD probabilities of the Tübingen Evaluation of Risk Factors for Early Detection of Neurodegeneration cohort (TREND study, n = 650, recruited by the presence of probable rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder, depression, and/or hyposmia or none of these at baseline and 2-, 4-, and 6-year follow-up) and the population-based Prospective Evaluation of Risk Factors for Idiopathic Parkinson's Syndrome cohort (PRIPS Tübingen subsample; n = 715, baseline and 3- and 5-year follow-up) were calculated. Baseline posttest probabilities, time to PD diagnosis, marker constellations, and longitudinal changes of prodromal PD probabilities were analyzed. RESULTS: Incident PD cases (TREND, n = 10; PRIPS = 7) showed significantly higher likelihood ratios of risk and prodromal markers at baseline when compared with nonconverters. Only 2 of 17 incident PD cases met the criteria for probable prodromal PD (ie, posttest probability > 80%) and 5 had possible prodromal PD (ie, > 50%) 1.4 to 3.8 years before diagnosis. The criteria showed high specificity and negative predictive values (>98%), but low sensitivity (TREND, 30%; PRIPS, 14%) and positive predictive values (TREND, 19%, PRIPS, 50%). The individual risk for prodromal PD in incident PD cases showed an inverse correlation with the time to conversion (Spearman rho = .80, P = .006) and unlike in nonconverters, increased during follow-up. CONCLUSION: The MDS prodromal criteria provide a practical framework for the calculation of prodromal PD risk. Although specificity of the criteria is high, most patients will not meet the criteria before diagnosis unless testing is thoroughly performed with numerous and highly specific markers objectively assessed. © 2017 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.742

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations97
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement DisordersSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207