ArticleNPJ Parkinson's disease2026
Prediction of impulse control disorders in Parkinson's disease through a longitudinal machine learning study.
Article in NPJ Parkinson's disease, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Impulse control disorders (ICD) in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients mainly occur as adverse effects of dopamine replacement therapy. Despite several known risk factors, ICD development cannot yet be accurately predicted at PD diagnosis. We aimed to investigate the predictability of incident ICD by baseline measures of demographic, clinical, dopamine transporter single photon emission computed tomography and single nucleotide polymorphisms data of medication-free PD patients, obtained from the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI; n = 311) and Amsterdam University Medical Center (UMC; n = 72) longitudinal datasets. We trained machine learning models to predict incident ICD at any follow-up assessment. The highest predictive performance (AUC = 0.66) was achieved by clinical features only. We observed significantly higher performance (AUC = 0.74) when classifying patients who developed ICD within four years from diagnosis compared with those tested negative for seven or more years. Overall, prediction accuracy for later ICD development at the time of PD diagnosis is limited, but increases for shorter time-to-event predictions.
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.