Examining Agreement in Psychotic Symptom Assessment: Insights from Parkinson's Disease Dementia Dyads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychosis and cognitive decline often co-occur in Parkinson's Disease (PD), which complicates assessment. OBJECTIVE: We measured agreement between patients with PD and dementia (PDD) and care partners (CPs) in their independent evaluation of PD-related psychotic symptoms. METHODS: We compared responses to a PD psychosis rating scale (SAPS-PD) in 21 dyads of patients with PDD and cognitively normal CPs. We assessed the concordance of responses using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Following the psychosis assessment, the clinician used all available information and adjudicated who provided the most reliable responses. RESULTS: Dyads demonstrated poor concordance in summary scores (ICC = 0.464). Six of the nine individual items had poor agreement. The clinician adjudicated the patient's response as the more reliable in 71.4% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Although many psychotic symptoms are internal and not observable, in the context of PDD, both patient and CP inputs are valuable, but final adjudication favors patient responses.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".