Anticipating Tomorrow: Tailoring Parkinson's Symptomatic Therapy Using Predictors of Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although research into Parkinson's disease (PD) subtypes and outcome predictions has continued to advance, recommendations for using outcome prediction to guide current treatment decisions remain sparse. OBJECTIVES: To provide expert opinion-based recommendations for individually tailored PD symptomatic treatment based on knowledge of risk prediction and subtypes. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi approach, members of the Movement Disorders Society (MDS) Task Force on PD subtypes generated a series of general recommendations around the question: "Using what you know about genetic/biological/clinical subtypes (or any individual-level predictors of outcome), what advice would you give for selecting symptomatic treatments for an individual patient now, based on what their subtype or individual characteristics predict about their future disease course?" After four iterations and revisions, those recommendations with over 75% endorsement were adopted. RESULTS: A total of 19 recommendations were endorsed by a group of 13 panelists. The recommendations primarily centered around two themes: (1) incorporating future risk of cognitive impairment into current treatment plans; and (2) identifying future symptom clusters that might be forestalled with a single medication. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations provide clinicians with a framework for integrating future outcomes into patient-specific treatment choices. They are not prescriptive guidelines, but adaptable suggestions, which should be tailored to each individual. They are to be considered as a first step of a process that will continue to evolve as additional stakeholders provide new insights and as new information becomes available. As individualized risk prediction advances, the path to better tailored treatment regimens will become clearer.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".