The Impact of a Digital Artificial Intelligence System on the Monitoring and Self-management of Nonmotor Symptoms in People With Parkinson Disease: Proposal for a Phase 1 Implementation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nonmotor symptoms of Parkinson disease are a major factor of disease burden but are often underreported in clinical appointments. A digital tool has been developed to support the monitoring and management of nonmotor symptoms. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to establish evidence of the impact of the system on patient confidence, knowledge, and skills for self-management of nonmotor symptoms, symptom burden, and quality of life of people with Parkinson and their care partners. It will also evaluate the usability, acceptability, and potential for adoption of the system for people with Parkinson, care partners, and health care professionals. METHODS: A mixed methods implementation and feasibility study based on the nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability framework will be conducted with 60 person with Parkinson-care partner dyads and their associated health care professionals. Participants will be recruited from outpatient clinics at the University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust Parkinson service. The primary outcome, patient activation, will be measured over the 12-month intervention period; secondary outcomes include the system's impact on health and well-being outcomes, safety, usability, acceptability, engagement, and costs. Semistructured interviews with a subset of participants will gather a more in-depth understanding of user perspectives and experiences with the system. Repeated measures analysis of variance will analyze change over time and thematic analysis will be conducted on qualitative data. The study was peer reviewed by the Parkinson's UK Non-Drug Approaches grant board and is pending ethical approval. RESULTS: The study won funding in August 2021; data collection is expected to begin in December 2022. CONCLUSIONS: The study's success criteria will be affirming evidence regarding the system's feasibility, usability and acceptability, no serious safety risks identified, and an observed positive impact on patient activation. Results will be disseminated in academic peer-reviewed journals and in platforms and formats that are accessible to the general public, guided by patient and public collaborators. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05414071; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05414071. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/40317.
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 | 0.051 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".