Developing better digital health measures of Parkinson’s disease using free living data and a crowdsourced data analysis challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the promising opportunities of digital health is its potential to lead to more holistic understandings of diseases by interacting with the daily life of patients and through the collection of large amounts of real-world data. Validating and benchmarking indicators of disease severity in the home setting is difficult, however, given the large number of confounders present in the real world and the challenges in collecting ground truth data in the home. Here we leverage two datasets collected from patients with Parkinson's disease, which couples continuous wrist-worn accelerometer data with frequent symptom reports in the home setting, to develop digital biomarkers of symptom severity. Using these data, we performed a public benchmarking challenge in which participants were asked to build measures of severity across 3 symptoms (on/off medication, dyskinesia, and tremor). 42 teams participated and performance was improved over baseline models for each subchallenge. Additional ensemble modeling across submissions further improved performance, and the top models validated in a subset of patients whose symptoms were observed and rated by trained clinicians.
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 | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".