In‐Home Remote Assessment of the <scp>MDS</scp>‐<scp>UPDRS</scp> Part <scp>III</scp>: Multi‐Cultural Development and Validation of a Guide for Patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The shift toward virtualized care introduces challenges in assessing the motor severity of Parkinson's disease (PD). The Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) part III, the most used rating scale in PD, lacks validation for synchronous remote administration. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to validate the usability of a patient guide to allow an accurate video-based MDS-UDPRS part III remote examination. METHODS: We conducted a multi-stage mixed methods study that included a team consensus for the concept of the guide, cognitive pretesting, and usability (system usability scale, [SUS]) testing in five sites (total n = 25 participants) with distinct linguistic and cultural contexts. RESULTS: A multi-language (English, Portuguese, Spanish, and traditional Chinese) largely pictograph guide of the MDS-UPDRS part III remote examination reached benchmark for usability (SUS score ≥68) in 25 participants who completed the synchronous remote assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The MDS-UDPRS part III remote examination guide can be used remotely accurately, and facilitate clinical practice and research in a paradigm of telemedicine.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it