Motor Progression in Early-Stage Parkinson's Disease: A Clinical Prediction Model and the Role of Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The substantial heterogeneity of clinical symptoms and lack of reliable progression markers in Parkinson's disease (PD) present a major challenge in predicting accurate progression and prognoses. Increasing evidence indicates that each component of the neurovascular unit (NVU) and blood-brain barrier (BBB) disruption may take part in many neurodegenerative diseases. Since some portions of CSF are eliminated along the neurovascular unit and across the BBB, disturbing the pathways may result in changes of these substances. Methods: Four hundred seventy-four participants from the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) study (NCT01141023) were included in the study. Thirty-six initial features, including general information, brief clinical characteristics and the current year's classical scale scores, were used to build five regression models to predict PD motor progression represented by the coming year's Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part III score after redundancy removal and recursive feature elimination (RFE)-based feature selection. Then, a threshold range was added to the predicted value for more convenient model application. Finally, we evaluated the CSF and blood biomarkers' influence on the disease progression model. Results: Eight hundred forty-nine cases were included in the study. The adjusted R 2 values of three different categories of regression model, linear, Bayesian and ensemble, all reached 0.75. Models of the same category shared similar feature combinations. The common features selected among the categories were the MDS-UPDRS Part III score, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) and Rapid Eye Movement Sleep Behavior Disorder Questionnaire (RBDSQ) score. It can be seen more intuitively that the model can achieve certain prediction effect through threshold range. Biomarkers had no significant impact on the progression model within the data in the study. Conclusions: By using machine learning and routinely gathered assessments from the current year, we developed multiple dynamic models to predict the following year's motor progression in the early stage of PD. These methods will allow clinicians to tailor medical management to the individual and identify at-risk patients for future clinical trials examining disease-modifying therapies.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".