Neuroimaging biomarkers for clinical trials in atypical parkinsonian disorders: Proposal for a Neuroimaging Biomarker Utility System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Therapeutic strategies targeting protein aggregations are ready for clinical trials in atypical parkinsonian disorders. Therefore, there is an urgent need for neuroimaging biomarkers to help with the early detection of neurodegenerative processes, the early differentiation of the underlying pathology, and the objective assessment of disease progression. However, there currently is not yet a consensus in the field on how to describe utility of biomarkers for clinical trials in atypical parkinsonian disorders. METHODS: To promote standardized use of neuroimaging biomarkers for clinical trials, we aimed to develop a conceptual framework to characterize in more detail the kind of neuroimaging biomarkers needed in atypical parkinsonian disorders, identify the current challenges in ascribing utility of these biomarkers, and propose criteria for a system that may guide future studies. RESULTS: As a consensus outcome, we describe the main challenges in ascribing utility of neuroimaging biomarkers in atypical parkinsonian disorders, and we propose a conceptual framework that includes a graded system for the description of utility of a specific neuroimaging measure. We included separate categories for the ability to accurately identify an intention-to-treat patient population early in the disease (Early), to accurately detect a specific underlying pathology (Specific), and the ability to monitor disease progression (Progression). DISCUSSION: We suggest that the advancement of standardized neuroimaging in the field of atypical parkinsonian disorders will be furthered by a well-defined reference frame for the utility of biomarkers. The proposed utility system allows a detailed and graded description of the respective strengths of neuroimaging biomarkers in the currently most relevant areas of application in clinical trials.
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 | 0.144 | 0.179 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".