ArticleBMJ neurology open2026
Identifying and predicting fast versus slow Parkinson's disease motor progressors using clinical and digital data.
Article in BMJ neurology open, 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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Digital health technologies offer high-frequency, objective measures for Parkinson's disease (PD) yet individual stratification is lacking. This study aimed to identify and predict fast versus slow PD motor progressors by integrating longitudinal clinical evaluation with smartphone motor testing. Methods: In this 96-week subgroup analysis of participants in the Exenatide-PD3 trial, motor progression was measured using Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part III OFF scores and smartphone testing (baseline, weeks 24, 48, 72, 96). Fast versus slow progressors were identified using data-driven subtyping; linear mixed-effects models assessed longitudinal OFF scores. Baseline clinical and digital features (in-clinic and at-home) were used to predict 96-week motor progression. Model performance was quantified by the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). Results: Data-driven clustering identified 26.5% (26/98) as fast progressors, with higher baseline OFF scores (+18.16, 95% CI 13.70 to 22.62; adjusted p<0.001) and greater 96-week progression (+8.17, 95% CI 2.75 to 13.60; adjusted p=0.019), undetected by prespecified approaches. Baseline prediction models combining smartphone features, alone or with clinical scores, consistently outperformed the clinical model alone (best AUC=0.78 vs 0.53). Translational value of smartphone assessments was strengthened by high user acceptability (>96% support future in-clinic use) and predictive value in a deployment scenario (AUC 0.80, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.82). Conclusion: Data-driven clustering identified one in four early-to-mid stage PD patients as fast motor progressors. Integrating smartphone-derived features with clinical scores improved baseline motor prediction. High user acceptability supports this approach for individual-level PD stratification, addressing heterogeneity in motor progression that may obscure treatment trial effects.
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.