ReviewJournal of Parkinson's disease2026
Crowdsourcing and machine learning contests in Parkinson's disease research - when do they work?
Review in Journal of 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveTo review the application of crowdsourcing and machine learning contests in Parkinson's disease (PD) research, identify best practices for successful implementation, and highlight future opportunities.MethodsThis paper analyzes the landscape of crowdsourcing in PD research through a literature survey and a comparative case study of two major machine learning contests: the MJFF Freezing of Gait (FOG) Challenge and the AMP PD Proteomics Challenge. We also describe a taxonomy of crowdsourcing projects and a framework of success characteristics for machine learning contest design.ResultsThe analysis of previous crowdsourcing and machine learning contests revealed that contest success is highly dependent on specific design factors. The FOG challenge, which addressed a "solvable but not yet solved" problem with a suitable scoring metric, successfully produced a high-performing algorithm with real-world clinical value. In contrast, the Proteomics challenge did not yield biologically meaningful results, as winning models bypassed the core proteomic data, highlighting issues of data signal and metric selection. The review also identified underutilized crowdsourcing approaches in PD research, including gamification and community-based open-source development.ConclusionsMachine learning contests offer a powerful, open-science-aligned method to address complex problems in PD. Success requires careful design, particularly a solvable problem and an appropriate scoring metric. There is significant potential to expand the use of diverse crowdsourcing techniques to accelerate progress in PD research and clinical care.
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.