MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995987287 · doi:10.2196/15628

Mobile Health Daily Life Monitoring for Parkinson Disease: Development and Validation of Ecological Momentary Assessments

2019· article· en· W2995987287 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeroen Habets, Margot Heijmans, Christian Herff, Claudia J.P. Simons, Albert F.G. Leentjens, Yasin Temel, Mark L. Kuijf, Pieter Kubben

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiteit Maastricht
KeywordsParkinson's diseaseEcologymHealthGerontologyDiseasePsychologyMedicinePsychological interventionBiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Parkinson disease monitoring is currently transitioning from periodic clinical assessments to continuous daily life monitoring in free-living conditions. Traditional Parkinson disease monitoring methods lack intraday fluctuation detection. Electronic diaries (eDiaries) hold the potential to collect subjective experiences on the severity and burden of motor and nonmotor symptoms in free-living conditions. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a Parkinson disease-specific eDiary based on ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) and to explore its validation. METHODS: An observational cohort of 20 patients with Parkinson disease used the smartphone-based EMA eDiary for 14 consecutive days without adjusting free-living routines. The eDiary app presented an identical questionnaire consisting of questions regarding affect, context, motor and nonmotor symptoms, and motor performance 7 times daily at semirandomized moments. In addition, patients were asked to complete a morning and an evening questionnaire. RESULTS: Mean affect correlated moderate-to-strong and moderate with motor performance (R=0.38 to 0.75; P<.001) and motor symptom (R=0.34 to 0.50; P<.001) items, respectively. The motor performance showed a weak-to-moderate negative correlation with motor symptoms (R=-0.31 to -0.48; P<.001). Mean group answers given for on-medication conditions vs wearing-off-medication conditions differed significantly (P<.05); however, not enough questionnaires were completed for the wearing-off-medication condition to reproduce these findings on individual levels. CONCLUSIONS: We presented a Parkinson disease-specific EMA eDiary. Correlations between given answers support the internal validity of the eDiary and underline EMA's potential in free-living Parkinson disease monitoring. Careful patient selection and EMA design adjustment to this targeted population and their fluctuations are necessary to generate robust proof of EMA validation in future work. Combining clinical Parkinson disease knowledge with practical EMA experience is inevitable to design and perform studies, which will lead to the successful integration of eDiaries in free-living Parkinson disease monitoring.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207