MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293109185 · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2022.977985

Multi-predictor modeling for predicting early Parkinson’s disease and non-motor symptoms progression

2022· article· en· W4293109185 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kaixin Dou, Jiangnan Ma, Xue Zhang, Wanda Shi, Mingzhu Tao, Anmu Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Aging Neuroscience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersH. Lundbeck A/SGenentechNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesSanofiBiogenGlaxoSmithKlineServierPfizerEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbMichael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research
KeywordsREM sleep behavior disorderLogistic regressionReceiver operating characteristicHyposmiaInternal medicineMedicineProportional hazards modelArea under the curveParkinson's diseaseDiseaseOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Identifying individuals with high-risk Parkinson’s disease (PD) at earlier stages is an urgent priority to delay disease onset and progression. In the present study, we aimed to develop and validate clinical risk models using non-motor predictors to distinguish between early PD and healthy individuals. In addition, we constructed prognostic models for predicting the progression of non-motor symptoms [cognitive impairment, Rapid-eye-movement sleep Behavior Disorder (RBD), and depression] in de novo PD patients at 5 years of follow-up. Methods We retrieved the data from the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) database. After a backward variable selection approach to identify predictors, logistic regression analyses were applied for diagnosis model construction, and cox proportional-hazards models were used to predict non-motor symptom progression. The predictive models were internally validated by correcting measures of predictive performance for “optimism” or overfitting with the bootstrap resampling approach. Results For constructing diagnostic models, the final model reached a high accuracy with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91–0.96), which included eight variables (age, gender, family history, University of Pennsylvania Smell Inventory Test score, Montreal Cognitive Assessment score, RBD Screening Questionnaire score, levels of cerebrospinal fluid α-synuclein, and SNCA rs356181 polymorphism). For the construction of prognostic models, our results showed that the AUC of the three prognostic models improved slightly with increasing follow-up time. The overall AUCs fluctuated around 0.70. The model validation established good discrimination and calibration for predicting PD onset and progression of non-motor symptoms. Conclusion The findings of our study facilitate predicting the individual risk at an early stage based on the predictors derived from these models. These predictive models provide relatively reliable information to prevent PD onset and progression. However, future validation analysis is still needed to clarify these findings and provide more insight into the predictive models over more extended periods of disease progression in more diverse samples.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Aging NeuroscienceSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207