ArticleNPJ Parkinson's disease2026
Optimizing Parkinson's disease progression scales using computational methods.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Parkinson's disease (PD) is a highly heterogeneous condition with symptoms spanning motor and non-motor domains. Clinical scales like the Movement Disorder Society's Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) are standard in clinical trials where disease progression is monitored. They rely on summing item values, assuming uniform item importance and score increments. Here, we propose a novel data-driven approach to optimize weights for such scales-so that total scores better reflect the underlying disease severity. In a retrospective observational analysis of longitudinal cohort data from the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI), our methods identified which items (and value increments) most strongly indicate PD progression, down-weighting or excluding less informative items. The learned weights substantially improve the monotonic relationship between total scores and clinical progression. We validated our weights using both held-out PPMI data and an independent dataset (BeaT-PD), demonstrating their robustness. Applying such weights in clinical trials may increase power and reduce the required sample size
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.