Validation of the Portuguese <scp>MDS</scp>‐<scp>UPDRS</scp>: Challenges to Obtain a Scale Applicable to Different Linguistic Cultures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The MDS-UPDRS has been available in English since 2008, showing satisfactory clinimetric results and being proposed as the new official benchmark scale for Parkinson's disease (PD), being cited as a core instrument for PD in the National Institutes of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Common Data Elements program. For this reason, the MDS created guidelines for development of MDS-UPDRS official, clinimetrically validated translations. OBJECTIVE: This study presents the formal process used to obtain the officially approved Portuguese version of the MDS-UPDRS. METHODS: The study consisted of three phases: (1) Independent translation by Portuguese and Brazilian teams followed by a challenging consensus process that this article particularly emphasizes; (2) Cognitive pretest involving raters and patients from both Portugal and Brazil; (3) Validation test with a sample of 367 native Portuguese-speaking PD patients. RESULTS: The overall factor structure of the Portuguese version was consistent with the English version based on a comparative fit index ≥0.96 for all four parts of the MDS-UPDRS. CONCLUSION: This version can be designated as the official Portuguese version of the MDS-UPDRS.
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 | 0.012 |
| 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".