ArticleJournal of Parkinson's disease2024
Modeling of Parkinson's Disease Progression and Implications for Detection of Disease Modification in Treatment Trials.
Article in Journal of Parkinson's disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A double-blind, controlled trial of circadian effective light therapy in patients with Parkinson's disease.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2025Trial
- Modeling Framework for Economic Evaluation of Disease-Modifying Therapies in Parkinson's Disease: Evidence Review and Expert Opinion.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- One-Year Substantia NigraMovement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2026Article
- Changes in Saccadic Hypometria over Time to Monitor Parkinson's Disease Progression.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2026Observational
- Comparative analysis of progression milestones across Parkinson's disease clinical, pathological, and data-driven subtypes: a 10-year follow-up.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2026Article
- Optimizing Parkinson's disease progression scales using computational methods.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2026Article
- Neuroprotective Effects of Thymol-Loaded Selenium Nanoparticles against 6-OHDA-Induced Apoptosis and Oxidative Stress in anCurrent pharmaceutical design · 2026Article
- Optimizing the MDS-UPDRS Part III for early-stage Parkinson's: early supportive evidence for a limb-related bradykinesia/rigidity sub-score.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2025Article
- Balancing practicality and complexity in neuroimaging models of Parkinson's disease progression.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Objectively measuring Parkinson's disease (PD) signs and symptoms over time is critical for the successful development of treatments aimed at halting the disease progression of people with PD. Objective: To create a clinical trial simulation tool that characterizes the natural history of PD progression and enables a data-driven design of randomized controlled studies testing potential disease-modifying treatments (DMT) in early-stage PD. Methods: Data from the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) were analyzed with nonlinear mixed-effect modeling techniques to characterize the progression of MDS-UPDRS part I (non-motor aspects of experiences of daily living), part II (motor aspects of experiences of daily living), and part III (motor signs). A clinical trial simulation tool was built from these disease models and used to predict probability of success as a function of trial design. Results: MDS-UPDRS part III progresses approximately 3 times faster than MDS-UPDRS part II and I, with an increase of 3 versus 1 points/year. Higher amounts of symptomatic therapy is associated with slower progression of MDS-UPDRS part II and III. The modeling framework predicts that a DMT effect on MDS-UPDRS part III could precede effect on part II by approximately 2 to 3 years. Conclusions: Our clinical trial simulation tool predicted that in a two-year randomized controlled trial, MDS-UPDRS part III could be used to evaluate a potential novel DMT, while part II would require longer trials of a minimum duration of 3 to 5 years underscoring the need for innovative trial design approaches including novel patient-centric measures.
Indexed as
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.