Feasibility of regional center telehealth visits utilizing a rural research network in people with Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Impaired motor and cognitive function can make travel cumbersome for People with Parkinson’s disease (PwPD). Over 50% of PwPD cared for at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) Movement Disorders Clinic reside over 30 miles from Little Rock. Improving access to clinical care for PwPD is needed. Objective: To explore the feasibility of remote clinic-to-clinic telehealth research visits for evaluation of multi-modal function in PwPD. Methods: PwPD residing within 30 miles of a UAMS Regional health center were enrolled and clinic-to-clinic telehealth visits were performed. Motor and non-motor disease assessments were administered and quantified. Results were compared to participants who performed at-home telehealth visits using the same protocols during the height of the COVID pandemic. Results: Compared to the at-home telehealth visit group (n = 50), the participants from regional centers (n = 13) had similar age and disease duration, but greater disease severity with higher total Unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale scores (Z = −2.218, p = 0.027) and lower Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores (Z = −3.350, p < 0.001). Regional center participants had lower incomes (Pearson’s chi = 21.3, p < 0.001), higher costs to attend visits (Pearson’s chi = 16.1, p = 0.003), and lived in more socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods (Z = −3.120, p = 0.002). Prior research participation was lower in the regional center group (Pearson’s chi = 4.5, p = 0.034) but both groups indicated interest in future research participation. Conclusions: Regional center research visits in PwPD in medically underserved areas 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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".