↓ Skip to main content

Modeling a Composite Score in Parkinson’s Disease Using Item Response Theory

Overview of attention for article published in The AAPS Journal, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Modeling a Composite Score in Parkinson’s Disease Using Item Response Theory
Published in
The AAPS Journal, February 2017
DOI 10.1208/s12248-017-0058-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gopichand Gottipati, Mats O. Karlsson, Elodie L. Plan

Abstract

In the current work, we present the methodology for development of an Item Response Theory model within a non-linear mixed effects framework to characterize the longitudinal changes of the Movement Disorder Society (sponsored revision) of Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) endpoint in Parkinson's disease (PD). The data were obtained from Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative database and included 163,070 observations up to 48 months from 430 subjects belonging to De Novo PD cohort. The probability of obtaining a score, reported for each of the items in the questionnaire, was modeled as a function of the subject's disability. Initially, a single latent variable model was explored to characterize the disease progression over time. However, based on the understanding of the questionnaire set-up and the results of a residuals-based diagnostic tool, a three latent variable model with a mixture implementation was able to adequately describe longitudinal changes not only at the total score level but also at each individual item level. The linear progression rates obtained for the patient-reported items and the non-sided items were similar, each of which roughly take about 50 months for a typical subject to progress linearly from the baseline by one standard deviation. However for the sided items, it was found that the better side deteriorates quicker than the disabled side. This study presents a framework for analyzing MDS-UPDRS data, which can be adapted to more traditional UPDRS data collected in PD clinical trials and result in more efficient designs and analyses of such studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Unspecified 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 15%
Mathematics 3 8%
Unspecified 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 11 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 August 2017.
All research outputs
#17,913,495
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from The AAPS Journal
#1,051
of 1,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,970
of 310,835 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AAPS Journal
#22
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,295 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,835 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.