MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417103204 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2025.1723707

Modeling and validation in Parkinson’s disease patients with frailty

2025· article· en· W4417103204 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guo‐Yang Li, Jing Huang, Wenli Zhang, Fengju Mao, Xiaoguang Luo

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDiseaseRisk stratificationLogistic regressionDepression (economics)Frailty syndromeCognitionCognitive impairmentAlcohol intake

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Parkinson’s disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disorder. The risk of frailty is significantly higher in patients with PD than in age-matched individuals without PD. This study aimed to develop a machine learning–based predictive model for frailty in PD. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study of early- and middle-stage PD patients recruited from June 2024 to June 2025 at Shenzhen People’s Hospital. Frailty was assessed using the Fried criteria (five components: gait speed, grip strength, physical activity, fatigue, and weight loss). A total of 42 demographic and clinical variables, including disease history, Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA), and unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale (MDS-UPDRS) scores, were collected and compared between PD patients with and without frailty. Spearman correlation and LASSO regression were used to identify independent risk factors. Multiple machine learning algorithms were applied to construct predictive models. Model performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, area under the ROC curve (AUC), decision curve analysis (DCA), calibration plots, and forest plots. Results A total of 205 PD patients were enrolled (133 non-frail, 72 frail; mean age non-frail 62.92 ± 9.69 years, frail 68.13 ± 8.44 years). Significant group differences were found in sex ( p = 0.013), age ( p < 0.001), disease severity (MDS-UPDRS, p < 0.001; modified Hoehn-Yahr stage (H&Y stage), p < 0.001), alcohol consumption ( p = 0.010), MoCA ( p < 0.001), HAMD ( p = 0.001), and Hamilton anxiety rating scale (HAMA) ( p < 0.001). Eight features were identified as independent predictors of frailty: sex, age, alcohol use, Modified H&Y stage, UPDRS-IV score, HAMA score, executive function, and naming. Among all tested algorithms, logistic regression achieved the best predictive performance (AUC = 0.83 in the test set), outperforming other machine learning models. Conclusion Frailty in PD was associated with female sex, older age, alcohol use, and more advanced disease severity. Patients with PD and frailty exhibited higher MDS-UPDRS scores, more severe cognitive impairment, and greater levels of depression and anxiety. Integrating clinical data with machine learning, especially logistic regression, provides a reliable and scalable tool for early identification and risk stratification of frailty in 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroscienceSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207