Faculty Opinions recommendation of Large-scale identification of clinical and genetic predictors of motor progression in patients with newly diagnosed Parkinson's disease: a longitudinal cohort study and validation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background-Better understanding and prediction of PD progression could improve disease management and clinical trial design.We aimed to use longitudinal clinical, molecular, and genetic data to develop predictive models, compare potential biomarkers, and identify novel predictors for motor progression in PD.We also sought to assess the use of these models in the design of treatment trials in PD.Methods-A Bayesian multivariate predictive inference platform was applied to data from the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) study (NCT01141023).We used genetic data and baseline molecular and clinical variables from PD patients and healthy controls to construct an ensemble of models to predict the annualised rate of the Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale parts II and III combined.We tested our overall explanatory power, as assessed by the coefficient of determination (R 2 ), and replicated novel findings in an independent clinical cohort of PD patients from the Longitudinal and Biomarker Study in PD (LABS-PD; NCT00605163).The potential utility of these models for clinical trial design was
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 | 0.004 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.112 | 0.049 |
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".