NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundDepression in Parkinson's disease (dPD) is common and heterogeneous, impairs quality of life, and may accelerate disease progression. Tools that predict long-term dPD progression are lacking.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed de novo, drug-naïve Parkinson's disease (PD) participants in the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI; 2011-2024). The primary outcome was depressive progression, defined as a sustained worsening in Geriatric Depression Scale-15 (GDS-15) category over 12 months. Candidate predictors included demographic, motor, and non-motor variables at both total and sub-item levels. Four survival machine learning models, Random Survival Forests (RSF), Extreme Gradient Boosting, Support Vector Survival Machines, and Gradient Boosting Survival Analysis, were evaluated using concordance index (C-index). Shapley Additive exPlanations were applied to identify key predictors and construct an integer-based risk score.ResultsOf 1819 eligible participants, 496 met inclusion criteria (median age 62 years [IQR: 55-69]; 61.3% male); 94 (19.0%) progressed over a median 6 year follow-up. RSF achieved the best discrimination (test-set C-index 0.744). Key predictors included age, baseline GDS-15; SCOPA-AUT subscores (thermoregulatory, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular); cognition (BJLOT, SDMT); impulse control disorder (QUIP-CS score), and MDS-UPDRS I (sleep problems night, pain and other sensations). The SHAP-derived score stratified patients into low (progression 7.3%), moderate (14.7%), and high-risk (36.5%) groups with clear Kaplan-Meier separation (log-rank p ConclusionsAn explainable survival model and integer-based risk score using routinely collected measures predicted long-term dPD progression and enabled pragmatic risk stratification to support early, personalized management.
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.