ArticleMovement disorders clinical practice2024
Validation of a 5-Year Prognostic Model for Parkinson's Disease.
Article in Movement disorders clinical practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Enhancing the Applicability and Robustness of a Prognostic Model for Parkinson's Disease: Suggestions for Future Research.Movement disorders clinical practice · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA simple prognostic model was previously developed to predict the probability of recently-diagnosed patients reaching negative outcomes (postural instability, dementia or death) in a 5-year period.
objectivesTo validate this model in an independent cohort and establish utility at later time points.
methodsValidation was performed using data collected in an incident cohort at baseline, 2 and 4 years. Predicted negative outcome probabilities were compared to actual 5-year outcomes.
resultsThe model, based on age, MDS-UPDRS axial score and 60-second animal fluency, predicted poor 5-year outcome when applied at baseline, (area under the curve (AUC) 0.80), 2 years (AUC 0.82) and 4 years (AUC 0.71). Power calculations showed that selecting a subgroup with prognostic score >0.5 reduced the sample size required for a disease-modifying trial.
conclusionsThis 5-year prognostic model has good accuracy when employed up to 4 years from diagnosis and may help stratification for disease-modifying trials.
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.