Measurement Instruments to Assess Functional Mobility in Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review
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
BACKGROUND: Functional mobility (FM) is a person's ability to move to accomplish activities of daily living; it bridges the concepts of mobility and functional ability. There is frequently a loss of FM in Parkinson's disease (PD). Several instruments have been used to assess this concept in PD; however, there is no consensus on which are the most appropriate. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify and critically appraise which measurement instruments have been used to assess FM. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PEDro from their inception to January 2019 to identify all observational and experimental studies conducted in PD or atypical parkinsonism that included an FM assessment. Two reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, and assessed clinimetric properties. RESULTS: We included 95 studies that assessed FM in PD. Fifty-five (57.9%) studies mentioned FM in the article, and 39 (41.1%) specified the measurement tools used to evaluate FM. FM was the primary outcome in 12 (12.6%) studies. The Timed Up and Go test was the most frequently used measurement tool. Only one study presented a definition of FM. Several overlapping terms were used, the most common being mobility. CONCLUSION: Several studies reported the use of FM measurement tools in PD, though with frequent misconceptions, an inadequate context of use, or suboptimal assessment. We propose the establishment of the concept of FM applied to PD, followed by the adequate clinimetric validation of existing measurement tools to provide a comprehensive and reliable evaluation of FM in PD.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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