Originally Posted by Debi Brooks

a couple of thoughts...we are in fact trying not to use phrasing that is too cumbersome and in general, inclusion / exclusion criteria will come into play at times that might make the general use of "parkinsonism" too broad.

We sense that from the prospective of the PD patient the concept of "healthy volunteer" does connote some value judgment--not to mention, from the perspective of a "control/healthy volunteer" patient...one could have arthritis and still be a considered an appropriate volunteer for a given study but they might disqualify themselves when they see the use of "healthy"...thinking their arthritis makes them "unhealthy"

We anticipate that it is tough to come up with universal "labels" but for the biomarker study, calling out the diagnosis might be too specific.

What about from the perspective of the control...what do you think catches their attention and is appropriately respectful and inclusive?

More thoughts?