Systematic review and consensus conceptual model of meaningful symptoms and functional impacts in early Parkinson’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comprehensive, patient-centered conceptual model of early Parkinson's is lacking and is greatly needed. A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research was conducted by a multi-stakeholder taskforce using JBI Mixed Methods Review criteria and GRADE-CERQual standards for assessment of evidence. Over 340 symptoms and impacts were identified across ten symptom domains (Movement, Cognitive, Psychiatric, Sleep, Sensory, Speech, Digestive, Urinary, Sexual, Autonomic) and two impact domains (Physical and Psychosocial functioning). A wide range of motor and non-motor symptoms were present in early disease, with strongest support for tremor, dexterity, gait, stiffness, slow movements, cognitive, mood, and sleep alterations, urinary dysfunction, constipation, pain, and fatigue. These affected mobility, self-concept, coping, effort of living, interactions and important activities, with evidence of many understudied concepts. This model offers the most comprehensive catalogue of symptoms and impacts in Parkinson's to date and will support clinical practice and endpoint selection for therapeutic trials.
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 | 0.155 | 0.284 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".