Measuring anxiety in Lewy Body Disease – Which scale to choose?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anxiety is among the most prevalent mood disorders in Lewy Body Disease (LBD) (i.e., Parkinson's disease (PD), Dementia with Lewy bodies DLB), and those at-risk for developing LBD (e.g. isolated REM Sleep Behaviour Disorder (iRBD)). Yet, there is little consensus on which clinical scale best evaluates anxiety across synuclein-based diseases. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the convergent validity of commonly used anxiety scales across PD, DLB and iRBD patients. METHODS: Anxiety was assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-A), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), MDS-UPDRS Anxiety item, and the Parkinson Anxiety Scale (PAS) in 57 participants (17 PD, 16 DLB, and 23 iRBD). RESULTS: Across all groups, PAS total score was significantly associated with trait anxiety (STAI-Y2), whilst HADS-A was associated with PAS total score in the PD and iRBD group. In DLB patients, HADS-A was weakly associated with PAS total score, and significantly correlated with PAS episodic anxiety. Notably, the anxiety item from the MDS-UPDRS did not correlate with any of the other anxiety outcome measures in any group. CONCLUSIONS: PAS and STAI-Y2 are the most suitable scales to assess anxiety in synuclein-based diseases. HADS-A showed strong convergent validity in PD and iRBD, it had weaker convergent validity in DLB. The UPDRS anxiety item did not correlate with any of the other anxiety measures, and thus may not be sensitive at detecting anxiety symptoms. Future work should validate anxiety scales in all Lewy Body Disease groups if they are to be implemented in prospective longitudinal cohorts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".