The Parkinson’s Disease Comprehensive Response (PDCORE): a composite approach integrating three standard outcome measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is an increasing need for improved endpoints to assess clinical trial effects in Parkinson’s disease. We propose the Parkinson’s Disease Comprehensive Response as a novel weighted composite endpoint integrating changes measured in three established Parkinson’s outcomes, including: OFF state Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale Motor Examination scores; Motor Experiences of Daily Living scores; and total good-quality ON time per day. The data source for the initial development of the composite described herein was a recent Phase II trial of glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor. A wide range of clinically derived relative weights was assessed to normalize for differentially scoring base rates with each endpoint component. The Parkinson’s disease comprehensive response, in contrast to examining practically defined OFF state Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale Motor Examination scores alone, showed stability over 40 weeks in placebo patients, and all 432 analyses in this permutation exercise yielded significant differences in favour of glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor. The findings were consistent with results obtained employing three different global statistical test methodologies and with patterns of intra-patient change. Based on our detailed analyses, we conclude it worth prospectively evaluating the clinical utility, validity and regulatory feasibility of using clinically supported final Parkinson’s disease comprehensive response formulas (for both the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale-based and Movement Disorders Society-Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale-based versions) in future disease-modifying Parkinson’s trials. Whilst the data source employed in the initial development of this weighted composite score is from a recent Phase II trial of glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor, we wish to stress that the results are not described to provide post hoc evidence of the efficacy of glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor but rather are presented to further the debate of how current regulatory approved rating scales may be combined to address some of the recognized limitations of using individual scales in isolation.
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 | 0.045 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".