SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Genetically-informed prediction of short-term Parkinson's disease progression.

NPJ Parkinsons Dis · 2022-10-28

DOI: 10.1038/s41531-022-00412-wPMID: 36302787

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Parkinson's disease (PD) treatments modify disease symptoms but have not been shown to slow progression, characterized by gradual and varied motor and non-motor changes overtime. Variation in PD progression hampers clinical research, resulting in long and expensive clinical trials prone to failure. Development of models for short-term PD progression prediction could be useful for shortening the time required to detect disease-modifying drug effects in clinical studies. PD progressors were defined by an increase in MDS-UPDRS scores at 12-, 24-, and 36-months post-baseline. Using only baseline features, PD progression was separately predicted across all timepoints and MDS-UPDRS subparts in independent, optimized, XGBoost models. These predictions plus baseline features were combined into a meta-predictor for 12-month MDS UPDRS Total progression. Data from the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) were used for training with independent testing on the Parkinson's Disease Biomarkers Program (PDBP) cohort. 12-month PD total progression was predicted with an F-measure 0.77, ROC AUC of 0.77, and PR AUC of 0.76 when tested on a hold-out PPMI set. When tested on PDBP we achieve a F-measure 0.75, ROC AUC of 0.74, and PR AUC of 0.73. Exclusion of genetic predictors led to the greatest loss in predictive accuracy; ROC AUC of 0.66, PR AUC of 0.66-0.68 for both PPMI and PDBP testing. Short-term PD progression can be predicted with a combination of survey-based, neuroimaging, physician examination, and genetic predictors. Dissection of the interplay between genetic risk, motor symptoms, non-motor symptoms, and longer-term expected rates of progression enable generalizable predictions.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.