Unified Parkinson's disease rating scale

Like we take the predicted STM power, STM raw signal, then computed beta power from those imputed signals.

And then we use those features to predict the patient's UPDRS motor severity score.

And we can see that the actual UPDRS value versus our predicted UPDRS value, the correlation is around 0.7. That's quite high.

And it clarifies something here that, as I said, that the beta power correlation between the real signal and the imputed one is around 0.3 to 0.5, but that's within patient.

So the patient's beta power oscillate, but it's still around one level, a certain level of the subject.

I'm not sure.

The gold standard right now for approval is the MDS-UPDRS clinical scale.

That's the one thing that I've been referring to when I say the clinical presentation.

It's how these patients are doing on that particular disease severity scale.

I think that was sort of the message I wanted to back over again, if that's all right.

And then what about some of the non-motor symptoms in Parkinson's? Are you using anything to cover those off? Do you refer to the UPDRS or do you get your patients to fill in a questionnaire before they see you or anything like that?

Yeah, I'll get them to complete a bit of an intake for them that flags some of the non-motor symptoms.

Also, I just ask about the main culprits.

Let's move to the discussion of the outcome because I think that is where there is an important methodological discussion.

So why select a combined MDS-UPDRS Part II and III as the primary outcome? For our listeners, Part II captures the motor aspects of experiences of daily living, whereas Part III is the clinician-rated motor outcome.

Yes.

So why combine these two?

They have expectations on blindness and of study drug and hopes of getting the real drug and things like that.

And so if it is only on a subjective basis, it is relatable, but it is also subjective, right? And so you need an objective measure.

The objective measure is the clinician-rated Parkinson motor score, the Part III of the MDS-UPDRS, which for decades has been time-tested.

And so we hope to get, again, the best of both worlds, very similar to a D1 selective, but partial agonist getting the best of both worlds mechanism-wise.

There was no significant effect on mood in this specific study, unlike the studies using white light, and there was no effect on motor symptoms, which to my mind is probably a strength, because if all of this was a placebo effect, or people had somehow discovered that blue light was the real deal, you would have expected everything to improve, but it didn't.

The fact that the UPDRS, the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, did not change, whereas sleep did improve, to my mind suggests a real genuine effect.

So a strength of the study, to my mind, is that it had a nice design with red light as a control.

There were positive outcomes specific for the predefined targeted symptoms and not just a global improvement across the board.

For Alzheimer's, it will be the minimal status.

For Parkinson's, it will be the UPDRS.

So you just have to fine-tune the model to predict the right thing and then to validate it again, to check the robustness in a different population and to replicate.

And it will work.