Reported Symptoms in Prodromal and Early Motor Parkinson's Disease: A Scoping Review on the Patient Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The lived experience of Parkinson's disease (PD) includes motor and non-motor symptoms. There is a need to capture the earliest patient experiences in a sensitive and reliable manner for the successful development of interventions that may delay clinical progression in PD. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to synthesize published literature about patient-reported symptoms in prodromal and early motor stages of PD and develop a conceptual framework of the earliest lived experiences in PD. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the published literature in MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and CINAHL databases and abstracted patient-reported symptoms from included studies reporting on prodromal or early motor stages of PD populations. RESULTS: We included 59 articles with data from 64 cohorts (prodromal PD: n = 20/64; 31%, early motor PD: n = 44/64, 69%). Overall, the 10 most frequent symptoms (of 85 standardized reported symptoms [SRSs]) were non-motor. SRSs were grouped into symptom domains (behavioral, cognition, dysautonomia, motor, sensory, sleep, and others) and functional domains (activities of daily living, communication, sexual, and social impairment). The Movement Disorder Society sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale parts Ib and II (n = 13/64, 20%) and ad hoc questionnaires (n = 12/64, 19%) were the most frequently used measurement tools. CONCLUSION: At prodromal and early motor stages of PD, individuals report symptoms of a diverse range of motor and non-motor domains and higher-level functional domains. There is a need to capture the full spectrum of this lived experience in a new patient-reported clinical outcome measure for clinical trials in the earliest clinical stages of 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 | 0.010 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".