NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Background: The prevalence of parkinsonism in developing countries is largely unknown due to difficulty in ascertainment because access to neurologists is often limited. Objective: Develop and validate a parkinsonism screening tool using objective motor task-based tests that can be administered by non-clinicians. Methods: In a cross-sectional population-based sample from South Africa, we evaluated 315 adults, age >40, from an Mn-exposed (smelter) community, using the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale motor subsection 3 (UPDRS3), Purdue grooved pegboard, and kinematic-UPDRS3-based motor tasks. In 275 participants (training dataset), we constructed a linear regression model to predict UPDRS3. We selected motor task summary measures independently associated with UPDRS3 (p Results: The mean UPDRS3 score in participants from the Mn-exposed community was 9.1 in both the training and test datasets (standard deviation = 6.4 and 6.1, respectively). Together, 57 (18.1%) participants in this community had a UPDRS3 ≥ 15, including three with Parkinson's disease. In the non-exposed community, the mean UPDRS3 was 3.9 (standard deviation = 4.3). Three (3.3%) had a UPDRS3 ≥ 15. Grooved pegboard time and mean velocity for hand rotation and finger tapping tasks were strongly associated with UPDRS3. Using these motor task summary measures and age, the UPDRS3 predictive model performed very well. In the test dataset, AUCs were 0.81 (95% CI 0.68, 0.94) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.81, 1.00) for cut points for neurologist-assessed UPDRS3 ≥ 10 and UPDRS3 ≥ 15, respectively. In the external validation dataset, the AUC was 0.85 (95% CI 0.73, 0.97) for UPDRS3 ≥ 10. AUCs were 0.76-0.82 when excluding age. Conclusion: A predictive model based on a series of objective motor tasks performs very well in assessing severity of parkinsonism in both Mn-exposed and non-exposed population-based cohorts.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.