MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4312087188 · doi:10.1002/alz.063998

Development and Validation of a clinical scale for defining RBD severity in participants of the North American Prodromal Synucleinopathy (NAPS) consortium

2022· article· en· W4312087188 on OpenAlexaff
Parichita Choudhury, Andrea Busicescu, Joyce Lee‐Iannotti, Pooja Rangan, David Shprecher, Yo‐El S. Ju, Bradley F. Boeve, Ronald B. Postuma

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterquartile rangeClinical Global ImpressionCohortMedicineConvergent validitySeverity of illnessConcurrent validityRank correlationSpearman's rank correlation coefficientGlobal Assessment of FunctioningCohort studyInternal medicinePhysical therapyClinical psychologyPsychologyPsychiatryPsychometricsCognitionPathologyInternal consistency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background REM Sleep Behavior Disorder (RBD) is a prodromal marker of α‐synucleinopathies with no standardized tool for assessing severity in clinical or research practice. RBD severity may have implications in measuring risk of phenoconversion, monitoring response to treatment and clinical trial design. This study assessed the validity of the RBD symptom severity scale (RBDSSS) and its correlation to the clinical global impression of severity (CGI‐S) in a cohort of participants enrolled in the North American Prodromal Synucleinopathy (NAPS) Consortium. Method Participants and their bedpartners enrolled in the NAPS cohort filled out an 8‐item questionnaire, developed by the International RBD Study Group, assessing frequency and severity of dreams, vocalizations, movements, and injuries associated with RBD, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms. The CGI‐S is a 7‐point scale ranging from normal (1) to most severely ill (7) and was completed by a clinician based on an independent interview with the participant ± their bedpartners. Total scores for participant (RBDSSS‐PT) and bed partner (RBDSSS‐BP) questionnaires were derived by multiplying frequency and severity scores for each feature, then summing the products for possible maximum scores of 54 and 38 respectively. Result This cohort (n = 212) was predominantly male (82.5%) with a mean ± SE age of 65.16 ± 1.46 years. The median (interquartile range) for RBDSSS‐PT, RBDSSS‐BP and CGI‐S was 11 (4‐17), 8 (4‐14.3) and 3 (3‐4), respectively. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients (rs) were as follows: RBDSSS‐PT vs. RBDSSS‐BP, rs = 0.579; RBDSSS‐PT vs. CGI‐S, rs = 0.642; RBDSSS‐BP vs. CGI‐S, rs = 0.487 (all P<0.0001). RBDSSS‐BP scores were significantly lower in women (6 vs. 9, Chi‐Square p = 0.009) while there were no differences in RBDSSS‐PT scores by sex. (9 vs. 11, p = 0.473). Conclusion A moderate correlation was observed between RBDSSS‐PT and RBDSSS‐BP suggesting good construct validity for the scale. CGI‐S correlated most with RBDSSS‐PT and had a weaker association with RBDSSS‐BP. Women had lower severity scores as reported by bed partners unlike their self‐reported scores, indicating possible sex differences in perceived RBD severity.

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)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→