[P1–258]: THE PROSPECT STUDY: DEVELOPMENT OF A UK‐BASED LONGITUDINAL OBSERVATIONAL STUDY OF PSP, CBD, MSA AND ATYPICAL PARKINSONISM SYNDROMES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Progressive Supranuclear Palsy (PSP), Cortico-Basal Syndrome (CBS) and Multiple System Atrophy (MSA) are rare degenerative brain conditions. The PROSPECT longitudinal study, comprising of seven UK centres is developing a clinical cohort of PSP, CBD and MSA patients to improve early diagnosis and track disease progression. Patients that do not yet fulfil formal diagnostic criteria for these conditions, but who are at high risk of converting to these core syndromes over time (Atypical Parkinsonism Syndrome – APS) are also recruited. Functional and cognitive assessments are completed at baseline and repeated after 6 and 12 months and annually for a further 4 years; PSP rating scale and UPDRS motor scores are assessed in all PSP/CBS/APS cases; the UMSARS is administered in MSA cases. The MoCA, ACE-3 and ECAS cognitive scales are assessed during each visit. In conjunction, a biobank of plasma, serum, DNA, RNA, spinal fluid, MRI, fibroblast cell lines has been created to explore biomarkers of disease progression. So far, 90 patients have completed their baseline assessment: 41 PSP, 12 CBS, 26 MSA and 11 APS; 24 have completed their 6 month follow-up visit. Average age at study entry was 69 ± 7 y and disease duration was 5.4 ± 3.7 y. Baseline PSP-RS and UPDRS scores was lower in the APS compared to the PSP (p<0.01 for both) but not the CBS subgroups. After 6 months, the PSP-RS in PSP/CBD/APS cases deteriorated by 7.5 ± 10.3 (p=0.15); the UPDRS motor score was unchanged compared to baseline. UMSARS score was 45 ± 15 at baseline and increased by 5.4 ± 8.3 after 6 months. At baseline, the MoCA and ACE-3 total score was higher in the MSA compared to PSP subgroup (P=0.004); there was no change in MoCA, ACE-3 and ECAS scores after 6 month follow up. The PROSPECT study will advance our understanding of PSP, CBD and MSA through in-depth phenotyping and longitudinal follow-up of patients and will aid the development of new treatments for these conditions. The inclusion of APS cases will be used to assign patients to diagnostic groups.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".