Clinical criteria for subtyping Parkinson’s disease: biomarkers and longitudinal progression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parkinson's disease varies widely in clinical manifestations, course of progression and biomarker profiles from person to person. Identification of distinct Parkinson's disease subtypes is of great priority to illuminate underlying pathophysiology, predict progression and develop more efficient personalized care approaches. There is currently no clear way to define and divide subtypes in Parkinson's disease. Using data from the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative, we aimed to identify distinct subgroups via cluster analysis of a comprehensive dataset at baseline (i.e. cross-sectionally) consisting of clinical characteristics, neuroimaging, biospecimen and genetic information, then to develop criteria to assign patients to a Parkinson's disease subtype. Four hundred and twenty-one individuals with de novo early Parkinson's disease were included from this prospective longitudinal multicentre cohort. Hierarchical cluster analysis was performed using data on demographic and genetic information, motor symptoms and signs, neuropsychological testing and other non-motor manifestations. The key classifiers in cluster analysis were a motor summary score and three non-motor features (cognitive impairment, rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder and dysautonomia). We then defined three distinct subtypes of Parkinson's disease patients: 223 patients were classified as 'mild motor-predominant' (defined as composite motor and all three non-motor scores below the 75th percentile), 52 as 'diffuse malignant' (composite motor score plus either ≥1/3 non-motor score >75th percentile, or all three non-motor scores >75th percentile) and 146 as 'intermediate'. On biomarkers, people with diffuse malignant Parkinson's disease had the lowest level of cerebrospinal fluid amyloid-β (329.0 ± 96.7 pg/ml, P = 0.006) and amyloid-β/total-tau ratio (8.2 ± 3.0, P = 0.032). Data from deformation-based magnetic resonance imaging morphometry demonstrated a Parkinson's disease-specific brain network had more atrophy in the diffuse malignant subtype, with the mild motor-predominant subtype having the least atrophy. Although disease duration at initial visit and follow-up time were similar between subtypes, patients with diffuse malignant Parkinson's disease progressed faster in overall prognosis (global composite outcome), with greater decline in cognition and in dopamine functional neuroimaging after an average of 2.7 years. In conclusion, we introduce new clinical criteria for subtyping Parkinson's disease based on a comprehensive list of clinical manifestations and biomarkers. This clinical subtyping can now be applied to individual patients for use in clinical practice using baseline clinical information. Even though all participants had a recent diagnosis of Parkinson's disease, patients with the diffuse malignant subtype already demonstrated a more profound dopaminergic deficit, increased atrophy in Parkinson's disease brain networks, a more Alzheimer's disease-like cerebrospinal fluid profile and faster progression of motor and cognitive deficits.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".