MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200189978 · doi:10.1002/mds.28884

Self‐Report versus Clinician Examination in Early Parkinson's Disease

2021· article· en· W4200189978 on OpenAlexafffund
Sheida Zolfaghari, Alessandra E. Thomann, Natalia Lewandowski, Dylan Trundell, Florian Lipsmeier, Gennaro Pagano, Kirsten I. Taylor, Ronald B. Postuma

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchF. Hoffmann-La RocheMichael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research
KeywordsRating scaleMotor symptomsCorrelationParkinson's diseasePsychologyBiomarkerPhysical therapyMedicineDiseaseInternal medicineDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Evaluating the discrepancies between patient‐reported measures and clinician examination has implications for formulating individual treatment regimens. Objective This study investigated the association between health outcomes and level of self‐reported motor‐related function impairment relative to clinician‐examined motor signs. Methods Recently diagnosed PD patients were evaluated using the Parkinson's Progression Marker Initiative (PPMI, N = 420) and the PASADENA phase II clinical trial (N = 316). We calculated the average normalized difference between each participant's part II and III MDS‐UPDRS (Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale) scores. Individuals with score differences <25th or >75th percentiles were labeled as low‐ and high‐self‐reporters, respectively (those between ranges were labeled intermediate‐self‐reporters). We compared a wide range of clinical/biomarker readouts among these three groups, using Kruskal–Wallis nonparametric and Pearson's χ 2 tests. Spearman's correlations were tested for associations between MDS‐UPDRS subscales. Results In both cohorts, high‐self‐reporters reported the largest impairment/symptom experience for most motor and nonmotor patient‐reported variables. By contrast, these high‐self‐reporters were similar to or less impaired on clinician‐examined and biomarker measures. Patient‐reported nonmotor symptoms on MDS‐UPDRS part IB showed the strongest positive correlation with self‐reported motor‐related impairment (PPMI r s = 0.54, PASADENA r s = 0.52). This correlation was numerically stronger than the part II and clinician‐examined MDS‐UPDRS part III correlation (PPMI r s = 0.38, PASADENA r s = 0.28). Conclusion Self‐reported motor‐related impairments reflect not only motor signs/symptoms but also other self‐reported nonmotor measures. This may indicate (1) a direct impact of nonmotor symptoms on motor‐related functioning and/or (2) the existence of general response tendencies in how patients self‐rate symptoms. Our findings suggest further investigation into the suitability of MDS‐UPDRS II to assess motor‐related impairments. © 2021 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement DisordersSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207