Validity of the Short Weekly Calendar Planning Activity in patients with Parkinson disease and nonmanifesting <scp><i>LRRK2</i></scp> and <scp><i>GBA</i></scp> carriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Subtle executive dysfunction is common in people newly diagnosed with Parkinson disease (PD), even when general cognitive abilities are intact. This study examined the Short Weekly Calendar Planning Activity (WCPA-10)'s known-group construct validity, comparing persons with PD to healthy controls (HCs) and nonmanifesting carriers of LRRK2 and GBA gene mutations to HCs. Additionally, convergent and ecological validity was examined. METHODS: The study included 73 participants: 22 with idiopathic PD (iPD) who do not carry any of the founder GBA mutations or LRRK2-G2019S, 29 nonmanifesting carriers of the G2019S-LRRK2 (n = 14) and GBA (n = 15) mutations, and 22 HCs. Known-group validity was determined using the WCPA-10, convergent validity by also using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Color Trails Test (CTT), and ecological validity by using the WCPA-10, Schwab and England Activities of Daily Living Scale (SE ADL), and Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE). RESULTS: Known-group validity of the WCPA-10 was established for the iPD group only; they followed fewer rules (p = 0.020), were slower (p = 0.003) and less efficient (p = 0.001), used more strategies (p = 0.017) on the WCPA-10, and achieved significantly lower CTT scores (p < 0.001) than the HCs. The nonmanifesting carriers and HCs were similar on all cognitive tests. Convergent and ecological validity of the WCPA-10 were partially established, with few correlations between WCPA-10 outcome measures and the MoCA (r = 0.50, r = 0.41), CTT-2 (r = 0.43), SE ADL (r = 0.41), and PASE (r = 0.54, r = 0.46, r = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: This study affirms the known-group validity for most (four) WCPA-10 scores and partially confirms its convergent and ecological validity for PD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".