Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 66 references

Uncertainty-Aware Prediction of Parkinson's Disease Medication Needs: A Two-Stage Conformal Prediction Approach

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Two-stage conformal prediction on 631 inpatient records yields statistically valid, clinically usable prediction intervals for Parkinson's medication dose changes up to two years ahead.

desk verdict The abstract describes a sensible clinical conformal prediction study, but the submitted full text is an unrelated cs.AI paper, so the methods and coverage results are absent; the artifact as submitted cannot be evaluated. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.10284 v1 pith:FJIQLZYR submitted 2025-08-14 cs.LG stat.MEstat.ML

Ricardo Diaz-Rincon , Muxuan Liang , Adolfo Ramirez-Zamora , Benjamin Shickel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGstat.MEstat.ML
keywords conformalpredictionParkinson'sdiseaselevodopaequivalentdailydoseuncertaintyquantificationelectronichealthrecordstwo-stagezero-inflateddata
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to show that uncertainty-aware prediction of Parkinson's disease medication needs is feasible with a two-stage conformal prediction framework. Using electronic health records from 631 inpatient admissions, the framework first identifies patients likely to require a dose change and then predicts the size of the adjustment, expressed as levodopa-equivalent daily dose, with a prediction interval. The authors report that the intervals achieve marginal coverage while being shorter than those from traditional approaches, so that short-term forecasts are precise and long-term forecasts honestly widen. If the claim holds, clinicians could replace trial-and-error dosing with interval-based guidance that carries a statistical guarantee.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a two-stage conformal prediction pipeline. Stage one is a classification model that separates stable patients (no dose change) from those who will undergo a change, so the zero-inflated target is modeled explicitly. Stage two is a conformalized regression model that outputs a prediction interval for the dose adjustment. Conformal prediction provides finite-sample marginal coverage guarantees under exchangeability, which is the statistical property being claimed. The two-stage structure is what lets the framework both flag changes and quantify the magnitude of those changes with calibrated uncertainty.

What would settle it

Take the trained two-stage model and run it on a separate cohort of Parkinson's patients from a different hospital or a later time period; compute the empirical coverage of the reported prediction intervals. If the empirical coverage falls materially below the advertised marginal coverage (e.g., below 80% for a 90% nominal interval), the exchangeability assumption is violated and the paper's main statistical claim fails. A more specific version: if a no-change classifier has the same AUC as random guessing, the two-stage design does not improve on a single conformal regressor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a two-stage conformal prediction framework, applied to electronic health records from 631 inpatient admissions over 2011–2021, can produce statistically valid prediction intervals for whether and by how much a Parkinson's patient's levodopa-equivalent daily dose (LEDD) will change, up to two years ahead. The first stage identifies patients likely to need a medication change, addressing the zero-inflated nature of the data; the second stage predicts the size of the dose adjustment with conformal intervals. The authors report that the framework achieves marginal coverage while yielding shorter prediction intervals than traditional approaches, meaning short-ter

Load-bearing premise

The whole coverage guarantee rests on the assumption that the 631 inpatient admissions from one health system between 2011 and 2021 are exchangeable with the outpatient Parkinson's patients whose future doses are being forecast, with no drift over time or across care settings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is right, neurologists can receive an interval, not a single number, for a patient's future LEDD, with a stated confidence level.
  • Short-horizon intervals will be tight enough to support dose titration decisions, potentially reducing trial-and-error and premature escalation.
  • Long-horizon intervals will be wider, giving clinicians an honest picture of forecast uncertainty and prompting earlier, more cautious monitoring.
  • The two-stage design could be reused for other chronic conditions where the outcome is zero-inflated (e.g., hospitalization or relapse), because the first stage handles 'no event' explicitly.
  • The reported reduction in interval length over traditional conformal methods, if it holds on external data, would make uncertainty-aware predictions more clinically useful by reducing ambiguity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not demonstrate that 631 inpatient admissions generalize to outpatient PD trajectories; a held-out outpatient cohort would test whether the conformal coverage guarantee survives the setting shift.
  • Marginal coverage is an average, not a per-patient promise; conditional calibration across age, disease stage, or baseline LEDD would be needed before a clinician can rely on the interval for an individual.
  • Because the abstract does not name the 'traditional approaches', the reported interval-length reduction could reflect the base model rather than the two-stage design; comparing against a single conformal regressor on the same data would isolate the contribution.
  • The two-stage structure could be reused for any zero-inflated clinical endpoint (e.g., hospitalization or relapse), but the width of the second-stage interval will depend on the calibration of the first-stage classifier's change probabilities.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The abstract describes a two-stage conformal prediction framework for forecasting Parkinson's disease medication needs (levodopa-equivalent daily dose adjustments) up to two years ahead, using electronic health records from 631 inpatient admissions at University of Florida Health (2011-2021). The abstract claims that the framework achieves marginal coverage while yielding shorter prediction intervals than traditional approaches. However, the submitted full text is an unrelated manuscript, 'Promoting Efficient Reasoning with Verifiable Stepwise Reward' (arXiv:2508.10293), which discusses reinforcement learning for large reasoning models. None of the methods, experiments, or results described in the abstract appear in the body of the submitted artifact.

Significance. If substantiated, the proposed two-stage conformal approach could be a meaningful contribution to clinical decision support for Parkinson's disease, particularly in addressing zero-inflated medication data and providing uncertainty-aware predictions with finite-sample coverage guarantees. However, the submitted manuscript does not provide any of the evidence needed to assess this contribution: there is no split-conformal construction, no nonconformity score, no calibration protocol, no empirical coverage or interval-length tables, and no dataset analysis. The potential significance is therefore entirely speculative on the basis of this submission.

major comments (4)
  1. [Full text (all sections)] The submitted full text is a different paper on verifiable stepwise rewards for large reasoning models; it contains no Parkinson's disease data, no conformal prediction methodology, and no prediction-interval results. The central claim in the abstract—that the two-stage framework achieved marginal coverage with shorter intervals—is therefore entirely unsupported by the artifact. This is an internal mismatch that prevents any verification of the paper's core contribution.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states that the framework 'achieved marginal coverage' but does not specify the conformal miscoverage level alpha, the calibration set size or split, the nonconformity score for the two stages (change/no-change and conditional dose-quantile), or the empirical coverage rate. Without these, the marginal coverage claim is not assessable. The reader's stress-test note correctly identifies this missing evidence as the most load-bearing concern.
  3. [Abstract] The claim of 'reducing prediction interval lengths compared to traditional approaches' is stated without defining the comparator (e.g., which traditional conformal baseline), the evaluation metric (e.g., mean interval width, median width), or error bars/confidence intervals for the comparison. Shorter intervals are only meaningful if coverage is simultaneously verified; the manuscript provides no way to rule out that shorter intervals result from under-coverage.
  4. [Abstract] The training sample of 631 inpatient admissions from one health system (2011-2021) is used to predict medication needs up to two years ahead, presumably for an outpatient population. The abstract offers no discussion of temporal drift, patient overlap, or exchangeability between the calibration/ training distribution and the target deployment distribution. Even if the two-stage method were fully described, the marginal coverage guarantee would rest on this sampling assumption, which is neither stated nor defended.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract uses the term 'marginal coverage' without formally defining the probability statement. Standard conformal literature defines it as 1 - alpha coverage over a new exchangeable sample; the manuscript should state this explicitly.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'precise predictions for short-term planning and wider ranges for long-term forecasting' is vague. If this is an empirical finding, it should be tied to a specific horizon-dependent analysis in the results.
  3. [Full text] The unrelated full text contains a figure caption (Figure 5) and other content that are not part of the Parkinson's disease study. If this is a submission error, the correct manuscript should be uploaded; as is, the artifact is internally inconsistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity identified; the claimed PD conformal-prediction derivation is absent from the submitted full text, so no derivation-by-construction step can be exhibited.

full rationale

The abstract describes a two-stage conformal framework for PD medication dosing, but the full text of the artifact (arXiv:2508.10284) is actually an unrelated paper, 'Promoting Efficient Reasoning with Verifiable Stepwise Reward' (arXiv:2508.10293), with no PD data, no conformal methodology, no coverage tables, and no equations corresponding to the claimed framework. A circularity finding requires quoting the paper's own equations or self-citation chain to exhibit a reduction of a prediction to its inputs (e.g., a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, or a theorem whose uniqueness premise is a self-citation). No such reduction is available here. In particular, the abstract's 'marginal coverage' claim is an empirical assertion about calibration/exchangeability, and the text provides no evidence that the coverage or interval lengths were produced by construction from the training data. The absence of the derivation is a serious completeness/integrity problem, but it is not circularity; there is no derivation chain to walk. Score 0 reflects no detected circular step, not endorsement of the scientific claims.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review: no equation-level audit is possible. The only identifiable assumptions are domain modeling choices, and no free parameters can be quantified from the abstract.

free parameters (2)
  • Conformal miscoverage level alpha = not reported
    The coverage guarantee depends on a chosen alpha; the abstract reports only 'marginal coverage' without the level.
  • Stage-1 change-detection threshold = not reported
    The two-stage design requires a cutoff deciding which patients are flagged for dose-change prediction; this directly affects the zero-inflated split and downstream intervals.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Exchangeability of the calibration and future test data, required for split conformal coverage guarantees.
    The abstract claims 'marginal coverage' but does not describe the data split or the exchangeability assumptions needed to justify that guarantee.
  • domain assumption 631 inpatient admissions at UF Health are representative of the outpatient PD population whose medication needs are forecast two years ahead.
    This sampling premise is implicit in any clinical prediction from EHR data and is not justified in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Zero-inflation in medication regimen changes is best handled by a two-stage classifier followed by a regressor.
    The abstract states the two-stage design as the solution to zero-inflation, but this is a modeling choice with no supporting comparison in the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Uncertainty-Aware Prediction of Parkinson's Disease Medication Needs: A Two-Stage Conformal Prediction Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FJIQLZYR

@misc{pith2026250810284,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Uncertainty-Aware Prediction of Parkinson's Disease Medication Needs: A Two-Stage Conformal Prediction Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FJIQLZYR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.10284}
}
read the original abstract

Parkinson's Disease (PD) medication management presents unique challenges due to heterogeneous disease progression and treatment response. Neurologists must balance symptom control with optimal dopaminergic dosing based on functional disability while minimizing side effects. This balance is crucial as inadequate or abrupt changes can cause levodopa-induced dyskinesia, wearing off, and neuropsychiatric effects, significantly reducing quality of life. Current approaches rely on trial-and-error decisions without systematic predictive methods. Despite machine learning advances, clinical adoption remains limited due to reliance on point predictions that do not account for prediction uncertainty, undermining clinical trust and utility. Clinicians require not only predictions of future medication needs but also reliable confidence measures. Without quantified uncertainty, adjustments risk premature escalation to maximum doses or prolonged inadequate symptom control. We developed a conformal prediction framework anticipating medication needs up to two years in advance with reliable prediction intervals and statistical guarantees. Our approach addresses zero-inflation in PD inpatient data, where patients maintain stable medication regimens between visits. Using electronic health records from 631 inpatient admissions at University of Florida Health (2011-2021), our two-stage approach identifies patients likely to need medication changes, then predicts required levodopa equivalent daily dose adjustments. Our framework achieved marginal coverage while reducing prediction interval lengths compared to traditional approaches, providing precise predictions for short-term planning and wider ranges for long-term forecasting. By quantifying uncertainty, our approach enables evidence-based decisions about levodopa dosing, optimizing symptom control while minimizing side effects and improving life quality.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Discriminative jackknife: Quantifying uncertainty in deep learning via higher-order influence functions

    Ahmed Alaa and Mihaela Van Der Schaar. Discriminative jackknife: Quantifying uncertainty in deep learning via higher-order influence functions. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 165--174, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Alnemer, Lama Rajab, and Ibrahim Aljarah

    Loai M. Alnemer, Lama Rajab, and Ibrahim Aljarah. Conformal prediction technique to predict breast cancer survivability. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 96: 0 1--10, 11 2016. ISSN 20054238. doi:10.14257/ijast.2016.96.01

    work page doi:10.14257/ijast.2016.96.01 2016

  3. [3]

    Aminoff, Chad W

    Michael J. Aminoff, Chad W. Christine, Joseph H. Friedman, Kelvin L. Chou, Kelly E. Lyons, Rajesh Pahwa, Bastian R. Bloem, Sotirios A. Parashos, Catherine C. Price, Irene A. Malaty, Robert Iansek, Ivan Bodis-Wollner, Oksana Suchowersky, Wolfgang H. Oertel, Jorge Zamudio, Joyce Oberdorf, Peter Schmidt, and Michael S. Okun. Management of the hospitalized pa...

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Anastasios Angelopoulos, Stephen Bates, Jitendra Malik, and Michael I. Jordan. Uncertainty sets for image classifiers using conformal prediction. arxiv preprint, 9 2020. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2009.14193

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Angelopoulos and Stephen Bates

    Anastasios N. Angelopoulos and Stephen Bates. A gentle introduction to conformal prediction and distribution-free uncertainty quantification. arXiv preprint, 7 2021. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2107.07511

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Angelopoulos and Stephen Bates

    Anastasios N. Angelopoulos and Stephen Bates. Conformal prediction: A gentle introduction. Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, 16: 0 494--591, 2023. ISSN 1935-8237. doi:10.1561/2200000101

    doi:10.1561/2200000101 2023

  7. [7]

    Theoretical foundations of conformal prediction

    Anastasios N Angelopoulos, Rina Foygel Barber, and Stephen Bates. Theoretical foundations of conformal prediction. arXiv preprint, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Armstrong and Michael S

    Melissa J. Armstrong and Michael S. Okun. Diagnosis and treatment of parkinson disease: A review. JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, 323: 0 548--560, 2 2020. ISSN 15383598. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.22360

    work page arXiv 2020

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Predictive inference with the jackknife+

    Rina Foygel Barber, Emmanuel J Candes, Aaditya Ramdas, and Ryan J Tibshirani. Predictive inference with the jackknife+. The Annals of Statistics, 49: 0 486--507, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    The need for uncertainty quantification in machine-assisted medical decision making, 1 2019

    Edmon Begoli, Tanmoy Bhattacharya, and Dimitri Kusnezov. The need for uncertainty quantification in machine-assisted medical decision making, 1 2019. ISSN 25225839

    2019

  3. [11]

    Entropy-based machine learning model for fast diagnosis and monitoring of parkinson's disease

    Maksim Belyaev, Murugappan Murugappan, Andrei Velichko, and Dmitry Korzun. Entropy-based machine learning model for fast diagnosis and monitoring of parkinson's disease. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 23, 10 2023. ISSN 14248220. doi:10.3390/s23208609

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system

    Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, volume 13-17-August-2016, pages 785--794. Association for Computing Machinery, 8 2016. ISBN 978145034232...

    2016

  5. [13]

    Distributional conformal prediction

    Victor Chernozhukov, Kaspar Wüthrich, and Yinchu Zhu. Distributional conformal prediction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118: 0 e2107794118, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Aromatic amino acids and modification of parkinsonism

    George C Cotzias, Melvin H Van Woert, and Lewis M Schiffer. Aromatic amino acids and modification of parkinsonism. New England Journal of Medicine, 276: 0 374--379, 1967

    1967

  7. [15]

    Timms, John Sinclair, Usha Menon, Ian Jacobs, and Alex Gammerman

    Dmitry Devetyarov, Ilia Nouretdinov, Brian Burford, Stephane Camuzeaux, Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj, Ali Tiss, Celia Smith, Zhiyuan Luo, Alexey Chervonenkis, Rachel Hallett, Volodya Vovk, Mike Waterfield, Rainer Cramer, John F. Timms, John Sinclair, Usha Menon, Ian Jacobs, and A...

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    Ray Dorsey, Larsson Omberg, Emma Waddell, Jamie L

    E. Ray Dorsey, Larsson Omberg, Emma Waddell, Jamie L. Adams, Roy Adams, Mohammad Rafayet Ali, Katherine Amodeo, Abigail Arky, Erika F. Augustine, Karthik DInesh, Mohammed Ehsan Hoque, Alistair M. Glidden, Stella Jensen-Roberts, Zachary Kabelac, DIna Katabi, Karl Kieburtz, Dani...

    2020

  9. [17]

    Espay, Francesca Morgante, Aristide Merola, Alfonso Fasano, Luca Marsili, Susan H

    Alberto J. Espay, Francesca Morgante, Aristide Merola, Alfonso Fasano, Luca Marsili, Susan H. Fox, Erwan Bezard, Barbara Picconi, Paolo Calabresi, and Anthony E. Lang. Levodopa-induced dyskinesia in parkinson disease: Current and evolving concepts, 12 2018. ISSN 15318249

    2018

  10. [18]

    Conformal prediction under feedback covariate shift for biomolecular design

    Clara Fannjiang, Stephen Bates, Anastasios N Angelopoulos, Jennifer Listgarten, and Michael I Jordan. Conformal prediction under feedback covariate shift for biomolecular design. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119: 0 e2204569119, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Anang, Véronique Latreille, Jean François Gagnon, and Ronald B

    Seyed Mohammad Fereshtehnejad, Silvia Rios Romenets, Julius B.M. Anang, Véronique Latreille, Jean François Gagnon, and Ronald B. Postuma. New clinical subtypes of parkinson disease and their longitudinal progression a prospective cohort comparison with other phenotypes. JAMA N...

    2015

  12. [20]

    Fox, Regina Katzenschlager, Shen Yang Lim, Brandon Barton, Rob M.A

    Susan H. Fox, Regina Katzenschlager, Shen Yang Lim, Brandon Barton, Rob M.A. de Bie, Klaus Seppi, Miguel Coelho, and Cristina Sampaio. International parkinson and movement disorder society evidence-based medicine review: Update on treatments for the motor symptoms of parkinson...

    2018

  13. [21]

    Gerlach, Ania Winogrodzka, and Wim E.J

    Oliver H.H. Gerlach, Ania Winogrodzka, and Wim E.J. Weber. Clinical problems in the hospitalized parkinson's disease patient: Systematic review, 2 2011. ISSN 08853185

    2011

  14. [22]

    Christopher C. Goetz. The unified parkinson's disease rating scale (updrs): Status and recommendations, 7 2003. ISSN 08853185

    2003

  15. [23]

    Risk factors for progression in parkinson's disease

    Christopher G Goetz, Caroline M Tanner, Glenn T Stebbins, and Aron S Buchman. Risk factors for progression in parkinson's disease. Neurology, 38 0 (12): 0 1841--1841, 1988

    1988

  16. [24]

    Goetz, Barbara C

    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 Le...

    2008

  17. [25]

    Heterogeneity of variance in clinical data

    Robert J Grissom. Heterogeneity of variance in clinical data. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68: 0 155--165, 2000. doi:10.1037/00

    doi

  18. [26]

    Machine learning with optimization to create medicine intake schedules for parkinson’s disease patients

    Tomasz Gutowski, Ryszard Antkiewicz, and Stanisław Szlufik. Machine learning with optimization to create medicine intake schedules for parkinson’s disease patients. PLoS ONE, 18, 10 2023. ISSN 19326203. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0293123

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Variable expression of parkinson's disease: A base-line analysis of the datatop cohort

    J Jankovic, ; M Mcdermott, ; J Carter, ; S Gauthier, ; C Goetz, ; L Golbe, ; S Huber, ; W Koller, ; C Olanow, ; I Shoulson, ; M Stern, ; C Tanner, ; W Weiner, and Parkinson Study Group. Variable expression of parkinson's disease: A base-line analysis of the datatop cohort. Neu...

    1990

  20. [28]

    Classification based levodopamine response prediction in parkinson’s disorder

    Aman Jatain, Shalini Bhaskar Bajaj, Ritika Agarwal, and Haziq Rahat Bullah. Classification based levodopamine response prediction in parkinson’s disorder. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 35: 0 1287--1303, 2021. ISSN 10876545. doi:10.1080/08839514.2021.1975881

    2021

  21. [29]

    Molecular mechanisms of l-dopa-induced dyskinesia, 9 2008

    Peter Jenner. Molecular mechanisms of l-dopa-induced dyskinesia, 9 2008. ISSN 1471003X

    2008

  22. [30]

    Sandhya Joshi, Deepa Shenoy, G. G. Vibhudendra Simha, P. L. Rrashmi, K. R. Venugopal, and L. M. Patnaik. Classification of alzheimer's disease and parkinson's disease by using machine learning and neural network methods. In ICMLC 2010 - The 2nd International Conference on Mach...

    2010 doi

  23. [31]

    Stefanie T. Jost, Marie Ann Kaldenbach, Angelo Antonini, Pablo Martinez-Martin, Lars Timmermann, Per Odin, Regina Katzenschlager, Rupam Borgohain, Alfonso Fasano, Fabrizio Stocchi, Nobutaka Hattori, Prashanth Lingappa Kukkle, Mayela Rodríguez-Violante, Cristian Falup-Pecurariu...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Predictive inference is free with the jackknife+-after-bootstrap

    Byol Kim, Chen Xu, and Rina Barber. Predictive inference is free with the jackknife+-after-bootstrap. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 0 4138--4149, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Schiess, and Xiaoqian Jiang

    Yejin Kim, Jessika Suescun, Mya C. Schiess, and Xiaoqian Jiang. Computational medication regimen for parkinson’s disease using reinforcement learning. Scientific Reports, 11, 12 2021. ISSN 20452322. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-88619-4

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    Kalia, Ahsan Habib, Priya Jagota, Rajeev Ojha, Rukmini Mridula Kandadai, Soaham Desai, Manjula Caldera, Darshana Sirisena, Divyani Garg, Tiago A

    Prashanth Lingappa Kukkle, Lorraine V. Kalia, Ahsan Habib, Priya Jagota, Rajeev Ojha, Rukmini Mridula Kandadai, Soaham Desai, Manjula Caldera, Darshana Sirisena, Divyani Garg, Tiago A. Mestre, Rosy Neupane, Suppata Maytharakcheep, Kanyawat Sanyawut, and Rupam Borgohain. Levodo...

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    Latourelle, Michael T

    Jeanne C. Latourelle, Michael T. Beste, Tiffany C. Hadzi, Robert E. Miller, Jacob N. Oppenheim, Matthew P. Valko, Diane M. Wuest, Bruce W. Church, Iya G. Khalil, Boris Hayete, and Charles S. Venuto. Large-scale identification of clinical and genetic predictors of motor progres...

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    Lusk, Sujung Choi, Amy G

    Jay B. Lusk, Sujung Choi, Amy G. Clark, Kim Johnson, Cassie B. Ford, Melissa A. Greiner, Margarethe Goetz, Brystana G. Kaufman, Richard O’Brien, and Emily C. O’Brien. Dementia and parkinson’s disease diagnoses in electronic health records vs. medicare claims data: a study of 1...

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Non-invasive brain stimulation for parkinson’s disease: Clinical evidence, latest concepts and future goals: A systematic review

    Julian Madrid and David H Benninger. Non-invasive brain stimulation for parkinson’s disease: Clinical evidence, latest concepts and future goals: A systematic review. Journal of neuroscience methods, 347: 0 108957, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Widnell, Suzanne Ostrowizki, Paulo Fontoura, F

    Kenneth Marek, Danna Jennings, Shirley Lasch, Andrew Siderowf, Caroline Tanner, Tanya Simuni, Chris Coffey, Karl Kieburtz, Emily Flagg, Sohini Chowdhury, Werner Poewe, Brit Mollenhauer, Todd Sherer, Mark Frasier, Claire Meunier, Alice Rudolph, Cindy Casaceli, John Seibyl, Susa...

    2011

  31. [39]

    Feature selection, l 1 vs

    Andrew Y Ng. Feature selection, l 1 vs. l 2 regularization, and rotational invariance. Technical report, 2004

    2004

  32. [40]

    Continuous dopamine-receptor treatment of parkinson's disease: scientific rationale and clinical implications

    C Warren Olanow, Jose A Obeso, and Fabrizio Stocchi. Continuous dopamine-receptor treatment of parkinson's disease: scientific rationale and clinical implications. The Lancet Neurology, 5: 0 677--687, 2006

    2006

  33. [41]

    Mccullough, Eric J

    Natalia Palacios, Xiang Gao, Marjorie L. Mccullough, Eric J. Jacobs, Alpa V. Patel, Tinisha Mayo, Michael A. Schwarzschild, and Alberto Ascherio. Obesity, diabetes, and risk of parkinson's disease. Movement Disorders, 26: 0 2253--2259, 10 2011. ISSN 08853185. doi:10.1002/mds.23855

    2011 doi

  34. [42]

    Inductive confidence machines for regression

    Harris Papadopoulos, Kostas Proedrou, Volodya Vovk, and Alex Gammerman. Inductive confidence machines for regression. In Machine learning: ECML 2002: 13th European conference on machine learning Helsinki, Finland, August 19–23, 2002 proceedings 13, pages 345--356, 2002

    2002

  35. [43]

    Reliable diagnosis of acute abdominal pain with conformal prediction

    Harris Papadopoulos, Alex Gammerman, and Volodya Vovk. Reliable diagnosis of acute abdominal pain with conformal prediction. Engineering Intelligent Systems, 17: 0 127, 2009 a

    2009

  36. [44]

    Confidence predictions for the diagnosis of acute abdominal pain

    Harris Papadopoulos, Alex Gammerman, and Volodya Vovk. Confidence predictions for the diagnosis of acute abdominal pain. In IFIP international conference on artificial intelligence applications and innovations, pages 175--184, 2009 b

    2009

  37. [45]

    Unbiased confidence measures for stroke risk estimation based on ultrasound carotid image analysis

    Harris Papadopoulos, Efthyvoulos Kyriacou, and Andrew Nicolaides. Unbiased confidence measures for stroke risk estimation based on ultrasound carotid image analysis. Neural Computing and Applications, 28: 0 1209--1223, 6 2017. ISSN 09410643. doi:10.1007/s00521-016-2590-3

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    Postuma, Daniela Berg, Matthew Stern, Werner Poewe, C

    Ronald B. Postuma, Daniela Berg, Matthew Stern, Werner Poewe, C. Warren Olanow, Wolfgang Oertel, José Obeso, Kenneth Marek, Irene Litvan, Anthony E. Lang, Glenda Halliday, Christopher G. Goetz, Thomas Gasser, Bruno Dubois, Piu Chan, Bastiaan R. Bloem, Charles H. Adler, and Gün...

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    Jaws-x: addressing efficiency bottlenecks of conformal prediction under standard and feedback covariate shift

    Drew Prinster, Suchi Saria, and Anqi Liu. Jaws-x: addressing efficiency bottlenecks of conformal prediction under standard and feedback covariate shift. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 28167--28190, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Conformal validity guarantees exist for any data distribution (and how to find them)

    Drew Prinster, Samuel Stanton, Anqi Liu, and Suchi Saria. Conformal validity guarantees exist for any data distribution (and how to find them). arXiv preprint, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    A decision support system based on recurrent neural networks to predict medication dosage for patients with parkinson's disease

    Atiye Riasi, Mehdi Delrobaei, and Mehri Salari. A decision support system based on recurrent neural networks to predict medication dosage for patients with parkinson's disease. Scientific Reports, 14, 12 2024. ISSN 20452322. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-59179-0

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    Conformalized quantile regression

    Yaniv Romano, Evan Patterson, and Emmanuel Candes. Conformalized quantile regression. In H Wallach, H Larochelle, A Beygelzimer, F d Alché-Buc, E Fox, and R Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc., 2019. URL https...

    2019

  43. [51]

    Salmanpour, Mahdi Hosseinzadeh, Mahya Bakhtiyari, Mehdi Maghsudi, and Arman Rahmim

    Mohammad R. Salmanpour, Mahdi Hosseinzadeh, Mahya Bakhtiyari, Mehdi Maghsudi, and Arman Rahmim. Prediction of drug amount in parkinson's disease using hybrid machine learning systems and radiomics features. International Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology, 33: 0 1437--1...

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    A tutorial on conformal prediction

    Glenn Shafer and Vladimir Vovk. A tutorial on conformal prediction. Technical report, 2008

    2008

  45. [53]

    Shamir, Trygve Dolber, Angela M

    Reuben R. Shamir, Trygve Dolber, Angela M. Noecker, Benjamin L. Walter, and Cameron C. McIntyre. Machine learning approach to optimizing combined stimulation and medication therapies for parkinson's disease. Brain Stimulation, 8: 0 1025--1032, 11 2015. ISSN 18764754. doi:10.10...

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    Classifying risk factors for dyskinesia in parkinson’s disease

    JC Sharma, Cornelius G Bachmann, and Gurutz Linazasoro. Classifying risk factors for dyskinesia in parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism & related disorders, 16 0 (8): 0 490--497, 2010

    2010

  47. [55]

    Parkinson disease therapy: current strategies and future research priorities, 2024

    Fabrizio Stocchi, Daniele Bravi, Aron Emmi, and Angelo Antonini. Parkinson disease therapy: current strategies and future research priorities, 2024. ISSN 17594766

    2024

  48. [56]

    The many shapley values for model explanation

    Mukund Sundararajan and Amir Najmi. The many shapley values for model explanation. Technical report, 2020

    2020

  49. [57]

    Conformal regression for quantitative structure-activity relationship modeling - quantifying prediction uncertainty

    Fredrik Svensson, Natalia Aniceto, Ulf Norinder, Isidro Cortes-Ciriano, Ola Spjuth, Lars Carlsson, and Andreas Bender. Conformal regression for quantitative structure-activity relationship modeling - quantifying prediction uncertainty. Journal of Chemical Information and Model...

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    Conformal prediction under covariate shift

    Ryan J Tibshirani, Rina Foygel Barber, Emmanuel Candes, and Aaditya Ramdas. Conformal prediction under covariate shift. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  51. [59]

    Tomlinson, Rebecca Stowe, Smitaa Patel, Caroline Rick, Richard Gray, and Carl E

    Claire L. Tomlinson, Rebecca Stowe, Smitaa Patel, Caroline Rick, Richard Gray, and Carl E. Clarke. Systematic review of levodopa dose equivalency reporting in parkinson's disease. Movement Disorders, 25: 0 2649--2653, 11 2010. ISSN 08853185. doi:10.1002/mds.23429

    2010 doi

  52. [60]

    Cross-conformal predictors

    Vladimir Vovk. Cross-conformal predictors. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 74: 0 9--28, 6 2015. ISSN 10122443. doi:10.1007/s10472-013-9368-4

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    Algorithmic Learning in a Random World

    Vladimir Vovk, Alexander Gammerman, and Glenn Shafer. Algorithmic Learning in a Random World. Springer, 2005

    2005

  54. [62]

    Cross-conformal predictive distributions

    Vladimir Vovk, Ilia Nouretdinov, Valery Manokhin, and Alexander Gammerman. Cross-conformal predictive distributions. In conformal and probabilistic prediction and applications, pages 37--51, 2018

    2018

  55. [63]

    Nahab, and Ritesh A

    Jeremy Watts, Anahita Khojandi, Rama Vasudevan, Fatta B. Nahab, and Ritesh A. Ramdhani. Improving medication regimen recommendation for parkinson’s disease using sensor technology. Sensors, 21, 5 2021. ISSN 14248220. doi:10.3390/s21103553

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    Hyperparameter optimization for machine learning models based on bayesian optimization

    Jia Wu, Xiu Yun Chen, Hao Zhang, Li Dong Xiong, Hang Lei, and Si Hao Deng. Hyperparameter optimization for machine learning models based on bayesian optimization. Journal of Electronic Science and Technology, 17: 0 26--40, 3 2019. ISSN 2666223X. doi:10.11989/JEST.1674-862X.80904120

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    An overview of overfitting and its solutions

    Xue Ying. An overview of overfitting and its solutions. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, volume 1168. Institute of Physics Publishing, 3 2019. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1168/2/022022

    2019 doi

  58. [66]

    Fischer, S

    William Yuan, Brett Beaulieu-Jones, Richard Krolewski, Nathan Palmer, Christine Veyrat-Follet, Francesca Frau, Caroline Cohen, Sylvie Bozzi, Meaghan Cogswell, Dinesh Kumar, Catherine Coulouvrat, Bruno Leroy, Tanya Z. Fischer, S. Pablo Sardi, Karen J. Chandross, Lee L. Rubin, A...

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.