Feasibility of telemedicine research visits in people with Parkinson’s disease residing in medically underserved areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Gait, balance, and cognitive impairment make travel cumbersome for People with Parkinson's disease (PwPD). About 75% of PwPD cared for at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences' Movement Disorders Clinic reside in medically underserved areas (MUAs). Validated remote evaluations could help improve their access to care. Our goal was to explore the feasibility of telemedicine research visits for the evaluation of multi-modal function in PwPD in a rural state. Methods: In-home telemedicine research visits were performed in PwPD. Motor and non-motor disease features were evaluated and quantified by trained personnel, digital survey instruments for self-assessments, digital voice recordings, and scanned and digitized Archimedes spiral drawings. Participant's MUA residence was determined after evaluations were completed. Results: Twenty of the fifty PwPD enrolled resided in MUAs. The groups were well matched for disease duration, modified motor UPDRS, and Montreal Cognitive assessment scores but MUA participants were younger. Ninety-two percent were satisfied with their visit, and 61% were more likely to participate in future telemedicine research. MUA participants traveled longer distances, with higher travel costs, lower income, and education level. While 50% of MUA participants reported self-reliance for in-person visits, 85% reported self-reliance for the telemedicine visit. We rated audio-video quality highly in approximately 60% of visits in both groups. There was good correlation with prior in-person research assessments in a subset of participants. Conclusions: In-home research visits for PwPD in MUAs are feasible and could help improve access to care and research participation in these traditionally underrepresented populations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".