ArticleCommunications medicine2026
Validation of remote multimodal AI screening for Parkinson disease across diverse settings.
Article in Communications medicine, 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTimely detection of Parkinson's disease (PD) remains limited by reliance on in-person neurological evaluations that are often costly and geographically inaccessible. To address these barriers, we develop PARK (Parkinson's Analysis with Remote Kinetic-tasks) - a web-based artificial intelligence (AI) tool that screens for PD using short webcam recordings of facial expression, motor, and speech tasks.
methodsAcross eight independent studies (n = 1,865 participants; 670 with PD), participants completed three standardized tasks (smile mimicry, finger tapping, and pangram utterance) via webcam. Task-specific neural networks estimate PD risk and uncertainty, which are integrated through an uncertainty-calibrated fusion model (UFNet). Model performance is evaluated on one internal and two external test sets representing supervised and unsupervised real-world environments. Three movement disorder specialists also reviewed videos from 30 participants to benchmark clinical agreement of the PARK tool. User experience is assessed through structured surveys containing open-ended or multiple-choice questions.
resultsPARK achieves accuracies of 80.2-80.6% and AUROC of 0.85-0.87 across all evaluation cohorts, with 83.3-86.5% sensitivity and 71.2-78.4% specificity. Predictive performance remains stable across sex, age, and ethnicity. Agreement with clinician judgments reaches Cohen's κ = 0.59. Uncertainty estimates reflect diagnostic confidence, and performance declines at high-uncertainty levels. Usability is rated highly (System Usability Scale > 70) in both supervised and unsupervised settings, with low perceived risk and strong user preference for remote screening.
conclusionsPARK demonstrates promising accuracy and favorable user acceptance for remote PD screening, highlighting its potential as an accessible, equitable, and uncertainty-aware tool for neurological assessment when traditional care is challenging to obtain.
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.