ArticleNPJ Parkinson's disease2022
Evaluation of the PREDIGT score's performance in identifying newly diagnosed Parkinson's patients without motor examination.
Article in NPJ Parkinson's disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a simplified smell test to identify Parkinson's disease using multiple cohorts, machine learning and item response theory.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2025Article
- Disease-modifying therapies for Parkinson disease: lessons from multiple sclerosis.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2024Review
- Multifactorial assessment of Parkinson's disease course and outcomes using trajectory modeling in a multiethnic, multisite cohort - extension of the LONG-PD study.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several recent publications described algorithms to identify subjects with Parkinson's disease (PD). In creating the "PREDIGT Score", we previously developed a hypothesis-driven, simple-to-use formula to potentially calculate the incidence of PD. Here, we tested its performance in the 'De Novo Parkinson Study' (DeNoPa) and 'Parkinson's Progression Marker Initiative' (PPMI); the latter included participants from the 'FOllow Up persons with Neurologic Disease' (FOUND) cohort. Baseline data from 563 newly diagnosed PD patients and 306 healthy control subjects were evaluated. Based on 13 variables, the original PREDIGT Score identified recently diagnosed PD patients in the DeNoPa, PPMI + FOUND and the pooled cohorts with area-under-the-curve (AUC) values of 0.88 (95% CI 0.83-0.92), 0.79 (95% CI 0.72-0.85), and 0.84 (95% CI 0.8-0.88), respectively. A simplified version (8 variables) generated AUC values of 0.92 (95% CI 0.89-0.95), 0.84 (95% CI 0.81-0.87), and 0.87 (0.84-0.89) in the DeNoPa, PPMI, and the pooled cohorts, respectively. In a two-step, screening-type approach, self-reported answers to a questionnaire (step 1) distinguished PD patients from controls with an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI 0.75-0.86). Adding a single, objective test (Step 2) further improved classification. Among seven biological markers explored, hyposmia was the most informative. The composite AUC value measured 0.9 (95% CI 0.88-0.91) in DeNoPa and 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.94) in PPMI. These results reveal a robust performance of the original PREDIGT Score to distinguish newly diagnosed PD patients from controls in two established cohorts. We also demonstrate the formula's potential applicability to enriching for PD subjects in a population screening-type approach.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.