Data-Driven Prediction of Fatigue in Parkinson’s Disease Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Numerous non-motor symptoms are associated with Parkinson’s disease (PD) including fatigue. The challenge in the clinic is to detect relevant non-motor symptoms while keeping patient-burden of questionnaires low and to take potential subgroups such as sex differences into account. The Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) effectively detects clinically significant fatigue in PD patients. Machine learning techniques can determine which FSS items best predict clinically significant fatigue yet the choice of technique is crucial as it determines the stability of results. Methods: 182 records of PD patients were analyzed with two machine learning algorithms: random forest (RF) and Boruta. RF and Boruta calculated feature importance scores, which measured how much impact an FSS item had in predicting clinically significant fatigue. Items with the highest feature importance scores were the best predictors. Principal components analysis (PCA) grouped highly related FSS items together. Results: RF, Boruta and PCA demonstrated that items 8 (“Fatigue is among my three most disabling symptoms”) and 9 (“Fatigue interferes with my work, family or social life”) were the most important predictors. Item 5 (“Fatigue causes frequent problems for me”) was an important predictor for females, and item 6 (“My fatigue prevents sustained physical functioning”) was important for males. Feature importance scores’ standard deviations were large for RF (14–66%) but small for Boruta (0–5%). Conclusion: The clinically most informative questions may be how disabling fatigue is compared to other symptoms and interference with work, family and friends. There may be some sex-related differences with frequency of fatigue-related complaints in females and endurance-related complaints in males yielding significant information. Boruta but not RF yielded stable results and might be a better tool to determine the most relevant components of abbreviated questionnaires. Further research in this area would be beneficial in order to replicate these findings with other machine learning algorithms, and using a more representative sample of PD patients.
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".