Andong Zhan1, Srihari Mohan1, Christopher Tarolli2,3, Ruth B Schneider2, Jamie L Adams2,3, Saloni Sharma3, Molly J Elson3, Kelsey L Spear3, Alistair M Glidden3, Max A Little4, Andreas Terzis1, E Ray Dorsey2,3, Suchi Saria1,5,6. 1. Department of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Department of Neurology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York. 3. Center for Health + Technology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York. 4. Department of Mathematics, Aston University, Birmingham, England. 5. Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 6. Department of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
Importance: Current Parkinson disease (PD) measures are subjective, rater-dependent, and assessed in clinic. Smartphones can measure PD features, yet no smartphone-derived rating score exists to assess motor symptom severity in real-world settings. Objectives: To develop an objective measure of PD severity and test construct validity by evaluating the ability of the measure to capture intraday symptom fluctuations, correlate with current standard PD outcome measures, and respond to dopaminergic therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational study assessed individuals with PD who remotely completed 5 tasks (voice, finger tapping, gait, balance, and reaction time) on the smartphone application. We used a novel machine-learning-based approach to generate a mobile Parkinson disease score (mPDS) that objectively weighs features derived from each smartphone activity (eg, stride length from the gait activity) and is scaled from 0 to 100 (where higher scores indicate greater severity). Individuals with and without PD additionally completed standard in-person assessments of PD with smartphone assessments during a period of 6 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ability of the mPDS to detect intraday symptom fluctuations, the correlation between the mPDS and standard measures, and the ability of the mPDS to respond to dopaminergic medication. Results: The mPDS was derived from 6148 smartphone activity assessments from 129 individuals (mean [SD] age, 58.7 [8.6] years; 56 [43.4%] women). Gait features contributed most to the total mPDS (33.4%). In addition, 23 individuals with PD (mean [SD] age, 64.6 [11.5] years; 11 [48%] women) and 17 without PD (mean [SD] age 54.2 [16.5] years; 12 [71%] women) completed in-clinic assessments. The mPDS detected symptom fluctuations with a mean (SD) intraday change of 13.9 (10.3) points on a scale of 0 to 100. The measure correlated well with the Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson Disease's Rating Scale total (r = 0.81; P < .001) and part III only (r = 0.88; P < .001), the Timed Up and Go assessment (r = 0.72; P = .002), and the Hoehn and Yahr stage (r = 0.91; P < .001). The mPDS improved by a mean (SD) of 16.3 (5.6) points in response to dopaminergic therapy. Conclusions and Relevance: Using a novel machine-learning approach, we created and demonstrated construct validity of an objective PD severity score derived from smartphone assessments. This score complements standard PD measures by providing frequent, objective, real-world assessments that could enhance clinical care and evaluation of novel therapeutics.
Importance: Current Parkinson disease (PD) measures are subjective, rater-dependent, and assessed in clinic. Smartphones can measure PD features, yet no smartphone-derived rating score exists to assess motor symptom severity in real-world settings. Objectives: To develop an objective measure of PD severity and test construct validity by evaluating the ability of the measure to capture intraday symptom fluctuations, correlate with current standard PD outcome measures, and respond to dopaminergic therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational study assessed individuals with PD who remotely completed 5 tasks (voice, finger tapping, gait, balance, and reaction time) on the smartphone application. We used a novel machine-learning-based approach to generate a mobile Parkinson disease score (mPDS) that objectively weighs features derived from each smartphone activity (eg, stride length from the gait activity) and is scaled from 0 to 100 (where higher scores indicate greater severity). Individuals with and without PD additionally completed standard in-person assessments of PD with smartphone assessments during a period of 6 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ability of the mPDS to detect intraday symptom fluctuations, the correlation between the mPDS and standard measures, and the ability of the mPDS to respond to dopaminergic medication. Results: The mPDS was derived from 6148 smartphone activity assessments from 129 individuals (mean [SD] age, 58.7 [8.6] years; 56 [43.4%] women). Gait features contributed most to the total mPDS (33.4%). In addition, 23 individuals with PD (mean [SD] age, 64.6 [11.5] years; 11 [48%] women) and 17 without PD (mean [SD] age 54.2 [16.5] years; 12 [71%] women) completed in-clinic assessments. The mPDS detected symptom fluctuations with a mean (SD) intraday change of 13.9 (10.3) points on a scale of 0 to 100. The measure correlated well with the Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson Disease's Rating Scale total (r = 0.81; P < .001) and part III only (r = 0.88; P < .001), the Timed Up and Go assessment (r = 0.72; P = .002), and the Hoehn and Yahr stage (r = 0.91; P < .001). The mPDS improved by a mean (SD) of 16.3 (5.6) points in response to dopaminergic therapy. Conclusions and Relevance: Using a novel machine-learning approach, we created and demonstrated construct validity of an objective PD severity score derived from smartphone assessments. This score complements standard PD measures by providing frequent, objective, real-world assessments that could enhance clinical care and evaluation of novel therapeutics.
Authors: Anthony E Lang; Shirley Eberly; Christopher G Goetz; Glenn Stebbins; David Oakes; Ken Marek; Bernard Ravina; Caroline M Tanner; Ira Shoulson Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: S Arora; V Venkataraman; A Zhan; S Donohue; K M Biglan; E R Dorsey; M A Little Journal: Parkinsonism Relat Disord Date: 2015-03-07 Impact factor: 4.891
Authors: Verónica Robles-García; Yoanna Corral-Bergantiños; Nelson Espinosa; María Amalia Jácome; Carlos García-Sancho; Javier Cudeiro; Pablo Arias Journal: J Appl Biomech Date: 2014-12-23 Impact factor: 1.833
Authors: Angelo Antonini; Pablo Martinez-Martin; Ray K Chaudhuri; Marcelo Merello; Robert Hauser; Regina Katzenschlager; Per Odin; Mark Stacy; Fabrizio Stocchi; Werner Poewe; Oliver Rascol; Cristina Sampaio; Anette Schrag; Glenn T Stebbins; Christopher G Goetz Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2011-07-20 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Pablo Martínez-Martín; Carmen Rodríguez-Blázquez; Tomoko Arakaki; Víctor Campos Arillo; Pedro Chaná; William Fernández; Nélida Garretto; Juan Carlos Martínez-Castrillo; Mayela Rodríguez-Violante; Marcos Serrano-Dueñas; Diego Ballesteros; Jose Manuel Rojo-Abuin; Kallol Ray Chaudhuri; Marcelo Merello Journal: Parkinsonism Relat Disord Date: 2014-11-05 Impact factor: 4.891
Authors: Christopher G Goetz; Barbara C Tilley; Stephanie R Shaftman; Glenn T Stebbins; Stanley Fahn; Pablo Martinez-Martin; Werner Poewe; Cristina Sampaio; Matthew B Stern; Richard Dodel; Bruno Dubois; Robert Holloway; Joseph Jankovic; Jaime Kulisevsky; Anthony E Lang; Andrew Lees; Sue Leurgans; Peter A LeWitt; David Nyenhuis; C Warren Olanow; Olivier Rascol; Anette Schrag; Jeanne A Teresi; Jacobus J van Hilten; Nancy LaPelle Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2008-11-15 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Lmar M Babrak; Joseph Menetski; Michael Rebhan; Giovanni Nisato; Marc Zinggeler; Noé Brasier; Katja Baerenfaller; Thomas Brenzikofer; Laurenz Baltzer; Christian Vogler; Leo Gschwind; Cornelia Schneider; Fabian Streiff; Peter M A Groenen; Enkelejda Miho Journal: Digit Biomark Date: 2019-08-16
Authors: Vrutangkumar V Shah; James McNames; Martina Mancini; Patricia Carlson-Kuhta; Rebecca I Spain; John G Nutt; Mahmoud El-Gohary; Carolin Curtze; Fay B Horak Journal: J Neurol Date: 2020-01-11 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Joaquin A Vizcarra; Álvaro Sánchez-Ferro; Walter Maetzler; Luca Marsili; Lucia Zavala; Anthony E Lang; Pablo Martinez-Martin; Tiago A Mestre; Ralf Reilmann; Jeffrey M Hausdorff; E Ray Dorsey; Serene S Paul; Judith W Dexheimer; Benjamin D Wissel; Rebecca L M Fuller; Paolo Bonato; Ai Huey Tan; Bastiaan R Bloem; Catherine Kopil; Margaret Daeschler; Lauren Bataille; Galit Kleiner; Jesse M Cedarbaum; Jochen Klucken; Aristide Merola; Christopher G Goetz; Glenn T Stebbins; Alberto J Espay Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2019-03-22 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Alberto J Espay; Jeffrey M Hausdorff; Álvaro Sánchez-Ferro; Jochen Klucken; Aristide Merola; Paolo Bonato; Serene S Paul; Fay B Horak; Joaquin A Vizcarra; Tiago A Mestre; Ralf Reilmann; Alice Nieuwboer; E Ray Dorsey; Lynn Rochester; Bastiaan R Bloem; Walter Maetzler Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2019-03-22 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: William O Tatum; Lawrence J Hirsch; Michael A Gelfand; Emily K Acton; W Curt LaFrance; Robert B Duckrow; David K Chen; Andrew S Blum; John D Hixson; Joe F Drazkowski; Selim R Benbadis; Gregory D Cascino Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Christopher G Tarolli; Julia M Biernot; Peter D Creigh; Emile Moukheiber; Rachel Marie E Salas; E Ray Dorsey; Adam B Cohen Journal: Neurol Clin Pract Date: 2021-04
Authors: Larsson Omberg; Elias Chaibub Neto; Thanneer M Perumal; Abhishek Pratap; Aryton Tediarjo; Jamie Adams; Bastiaan R Bloem; Brian M Bot; Molly Elson; Samuel M Goldman; Michael R Kellen; Karl Kieburtz; Arno Klein; Max A Little; Ruth Schneider; Christine Suver; Christopher Tarolli; Caroline M Tanner; Andrew D Trister; John Wilbanks; E Ray Dorsey; Lara M Mangravite Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2021-08-09 Impact factor: 54.908