It Is as It Was: MDS‐UPDRS Part III Scores Cannot Be Combined with Other Parts to Give a Valid Sum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Original clinimetric analyses by the Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) developers did not confirm the validity of summing the scores of its parts. Recent studies used the summed score of Part III and other parts as efficacy outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to establish whether summing scores of MDS-UPDRS parts can be recommended. METHODS: Using 7466 full MDS-UPDRS scores, we applied two-step factor analysis as in the original article to reassess the validity analysis with the threshold criterion set at comparative fit index ≥0.9. RESULTS: All comparative fit indexes of any combination including Part III were lower than 0.90. CONCLUSIONS: Summing Part III MDS-UPDRS scores with other parts is not clinimetrically sound. The MDS-UPDRS is a validated four-part scale with corresponding individual part scores and needs to be used within the limits originally presented. © 2022 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
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 | 0.044 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".