Clinical Progression of Parkinson’s Disease: Insights from the NINDS Common Data Elements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: To synchronize data collection, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) recommended Common Data Elements (CDEs) for use in Parkinson's disease (PD) research. This study delineated the progression patterns of these CDEs in a cohort of PD patients. METHODS: One hundred-twenty-five PD patients participated in the PD Biomarker Program (PDBP) at Penn State. CDEs, including MDS-Unified PD Rating Scale (UPDRS)-total, questionnaire-based non-motor (-I) and motor (-II), and rater-based motor (-III) subscales; Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA); Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS); University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT); and PD Questionnaire (PDQ-39) were obtained at baseline and three annual follow-ups. Annual change was delineated for PD or subgroups [early = PDE, disease duration (DD) <1 y; middle = PDM, DD = 1-5 y; and late = PDL, DD > 5 y] using mixed effects model analyses. RESULTS: UPDRS-total, -II, and PDQ-39 scores increased significantly, and UPSIT decreased, whereas UPDRS-I, -III, MoCA, and HDRS did not change, over 36 months in the overall PD cohort. In the PDE subgroup, UPDRS-II increased and UPSIT decreased significantly, whereas MoCA and UPSIT decreased significantly in the PDM subgroup. In the PDL subgroup, UPDRS-II and PDQ-39 increased significantly. Other metrics within each individual subgroup did not change. Sensitivity analyses using subjects with complete data confirmed these findings. CONCLUSION: Among CDEs, UPDRS-total, -II, PDQ-39, and UPSIT all are sensitive metrics to track PD progression. Subgroup analyses revealed that these CDEs have distinct stage-dependent sensitivities, with UPSIT for DD < 5 y, PDQ-39 for DD > 5 y, UPDRS-II for early (DD < 1) or later stages (DD > 5).
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 | 0.032 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".