Preparing for Parkinson’s disease prevention trials: Current progress and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent decades, numerous clinical trials have aimed to delay or prevent Parkinson's disease (PD) progression. Despite the theoretical promise and encouraging preclinical data, none have shown clear efficacy in slowing or preventing PD progression, related to several key limitations. Conventional motor and non-motor scales often fall short in detecting early disease changes, while the heterogeneity of PD phenotypes complicates treatment efficacy. The timing of interventions is also critical, as most trials target patients already in advanced stages of neurodegeneration. A deeper understanding of the preclinical phase and the emergence of new pathological frameworks have shifted the focus toward preventing the onset of clinical PD. Recent advances in biomarker research, including tissue, fluid, and imaging markers, are poised to transform PD research by improving patient selection, stratification, and disease progression monitoring. New biologically grounded frameworks for classifying synucleinopathies aim to distinguish biological subtypes from clinical phenotypes, enabling more targeted prevention trials. Successful PD prevention trials will require early enrollment of individuals at the highest risk, employing low-risk personalized interventions, with biomarkers or sensitive clinical markers as endpoints. Early involvement of key stakeholders will be essential to ensure that trials are timely, ethically sound, and aligned with the needs of the PD community.
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 | 0.022 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".