ArticleMovement disorders clinical practice2026
Computer Vision Analysis for Objective Motor Assessment in Parkinson's Disease: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Movement disorders clinical practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimation of the Knee Joint with Single-Camera Smartphone.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Identification of responsive motor symptom assessment items reflecting plasma levodopa changes in individuals with Parkinson's disease.Clinical parkinsonism & related disorders · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale-Part III (MDS-UPDRS-III) is subjective and insensitive to subtle changes in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). Computer vision (CV) can extract objective kinematics from routine outpatient videos, potentially augmenting the accuracy of the motor assessment.
objectiveWe set out to (1) Identify CV-derived finger-tapping features that discriminate PD from healthy controls (HC); and (2) Quantify the relationship of these extracted features with clinical and Dopamine Transporter Single-photon Emission Computed Tomography (DAT-SPECT) anchors in PD patients.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed outpatient finger-tapping videos from PD patients with DAT-SPECT positivity within one year from videos and HC. A Mediapipe-based pipeline quantified tapping velocity, changes in amplitude, and variability in amplitude and rhythm. Diagnostic performance was estimated with Receiver Operating Characteristic Area Under the Curves (ROC AUC) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI). Spearman assessed the relationship between tapping features, MDS-UPDRS-III, item 3.4 (finger tapping), and disease duration.
resultsThirty-two PD patients and ten controls were included. Amplitude variability (AUCs, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.84-0.99, P < 0.001), and rhythm variability (AUC, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-0.94, P < 0.001) exhibited the best discriminatory capacity for a PD diagnosis. MDS-UPDRS-III correlated positively with amplitude variability (ρ = 0.55, p = 0.001) and amplitude decrement (ρ = 0.414, P = 0.009), and negatively with tapping velocity (ρ = -0.34, P = 0.05). Amplitude variability (ρ = 0.387, P = 0.014), and rhythm variability (ρ = 0.304, P = 0.045) directly correlated with item 3.4, while amplitude variability positively correlated with disease duration (ρ = 0.39, P = 0.026).
conclusionCV-derived tapping variability features objectively discriminated PD from healthy subjects and tracked motor severity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.