Evidence for the Link Between Non-Motor Symptoms, Kinematic Gait Parameters, and Physical Function in People with Parkinson’s Disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease (PD) affects both motor and non-motor functions, but their interactions are understudied. This study aims to explore the relationships between non-motor and motor effects of PD, focusing on depression, fatigue, gait parameters, concentration, and physical function. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of baseline data from a randomized feasibility study using a commercially available Heel2Toe™ sensor, providing auditory feedback for gait quality. The sample included PD patients with gait impairments who walked without aids. Non-motor measures were depression, fatigue, and concentration, while motor measures included gait quality (angular velocity and variability during heel strike, push-off, foot swing) and physical function (6MWT, Mini-BESTest, Neuro-QoL). Path analysis was used to assess direct and indirect effects. RESULTS: Among 27 participants, fatigue impacted heel strike, which affected Neuro-QoL. Mood influenced push-off and Neuro-QoL, with a direct link to 6MWT. Foot swing affected Mini-BESTest and Neuro-QoL directly. CONCLUSIONS: Non-motor PD effects directly influenced specific gait parameters and physical function indicators, highlighting potential digital biomarkers of fatigue and mood for targeted interventions.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 it