APDM gait and balance measures fail to predict symptom progression rate in Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parkinson's disease (PD) results in progressively worsening gait and balance dysfunction that can be measured using computerized devices. We utilized the longitudinal database of the Parkinson's Disease Biomarker Program to determine if baseline gait and balance measures predict future rates of symptom progression. We included 230, 222, 164, and 177 PD subjects with 6, 12, 18, and 24 months of follow-up, respectively, and we defined progression as worsening of the following clinical parameters: MDS-UPDRS total score, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, PDQ-39 mobility subscale, levodopa equivalent daily dose, Schwab and England score, and global composite outcome. We developed ridge regression models to independently estimate how each gait or balance measure, or combination of measures, predicted progression. The accuracy of each ridge regression model was calculated by cross-validation in which 90% of the data were used to estimate the ridge regression model which was then tested on the 10% of data left out. While the models modestly predicted change in outcomes at the 6-month follow-up visit (accuracy in the range of 66-71%) there was no change in the outcome variables during this short follow-up (median change in MDS-UPDRS total score = 0 and change in LEDD = 0). At follow-up periods of 12, 18, and 24 months, the models failed to predict change (accuracy in the held-out sets ranged from 42 to 60%). We conclude that this set of computerized gait and balance measures performed at baseline is unlikely to help predict future disease progression in PD. Research scientists must continue to search for progression predictors to enhance the performance of disease modifying clinical trials.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".