Prodromal Parkinson's Disease: The Decade Past, the Decade to Come
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The past decade has seen a dramatic expansion of the field of prodromal PD. Ten years ago, there were only six known prodromal markers of disease, none of which had more than two studies documenting diagnostic value. We now have at least 16 markers, with as many as 10 prospective studies for a single marker. This review summarizes the major advances over the last decade and speculates about the advances we will see in the decade to come. The most notable advances over the last decade came through the study of high-risk cohorts (REM sleep behavior disorder and later genetic and autonomic cohorts), the generation of more representative population-based cohorts for studying prodromal PD, major advances in neuroimaging of early disease stages, the emerging likelihood that tissue biopsy will be able to diagnose prodromal PD, and the coalescence of prodromal markers into discrete criteria. As the next decade dawns, we await increasing precision of sensitivity and specificity estimates of known markers, the discovery of new biomarkers of prodromal disease, improvements in diagnosis using combined methods/criteria (with increasing recognition of prodromal PD as one stage of the full PD spectrum), and ultimately the development of neuroprotective therapy that can be provided at the earliest stages of disease. © 2019 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it