A common framework to evaluate Parkinson’s disease in voice and handwriting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parkinson’s disease is manifested as well in \nhandwriting as in voice. Previous researches have carried out different procedures to estimate the dysfunctions of the illness in voice and handwriting separately. This paper proposes one parameter to evaluate the influence of the illness on both voice \nand handwriting as the symptoms affecting both has a common origin. Specifically, the parameter proposed is based on the Kinematic Theory of rapid human movements. It allows to quantify the deficits caused by Parkinson’s disease in both handwriting and voice. The velocity profile obtained to characterize voice between the first and second formant is computed by a spatio-temporal approximation. In handwriting, the velocity profile is obtained from the sampled positions of the \npen on a digital tablet. Once the velocity profile is derived, it is transformed to fit into the lognormal model in which similarities between voice and handwriting has been found for performance of these tasks by Parkinson’s patients. The experiments with different databases of voice and handwriting recorded from different patients in different labs display encouraging results.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".