CDP Metric Definition and Formula

What the evidence says

The claims below extracted under "CDP" describe four unrelated metrics — a fairness-in-machine-learning statistic, a multiple sclerosis disability-progression endpoint, an esophageal-motility landmark, and a corporate emissions-disclosure convention — that happen to share the acronym. None of the sources measure a common outcome, so there is no single empirical thread to walk; each is a definitional or methodological claim about how its respective CDP is constructed, not a claim about what a policy or intervention does to an outcome.

In the fairness literature, Conditional Demographic Parity (CDP) is defined by the formula requiring equal probability of a favorable decision across sensitive-attribute groups (for example, gender) once a conditioning variable such as a credit rating is held fixed: P(Ŷ=1 | A=a, R=r) = P(Ŷ=1 | A=b, R=r) for all groups a, b and all levels r (Castelnovo 2022). Extending this conditioning to every non-sensitive variable in the data collapses CDP into full conditional independence between the decision and the sensitive attribute given all covariates, which the source describes as equivalent to a gender-blind model satisfying "fairness through unawareness" (Castelnovo 2022).

In multiple sclerosis trials, Confirmed Disability Progression (CDP) is defined as a baseline-dependent increase in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) that persists at 12–24 weeks, with 24-week confirmation increasingly preferred for its superior specificity and robustness (Föttinger 2026). Progression classified as CDP is observed to occur through two distinct patterns: relapse-associated worsening (RAW), where progression follows incomplete recovery from a relapse, or progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA) (Föttinger 2026). A composite endpoint, EDSS-Plus, extends the definition to 24-week confirmed worsening in any of three measures — EDSS, the timed 25-foot walk (T25FW), or the nine-hole peg test (9HPT) — which the source describes as increasing sensitivity relative to EDSS alone, though no numeric sensitivity value is given (Föttinger 2026).

In esophageal motility testing, the Contractile Deceleration Point (CDP) is defined as the inflection point between the proximal rapid and distal slow phases of esophageal contraction, located within 3 cm of the proximal aspect of the pre-swallow esophagogastric junction (EGJ) high-pressure zone (Yadlapati 2020). Distal latency is measured as the interval from the start of upper esophageal sphincter relaxation to the CDP (Yadlapati 2020). When the CDP cannot be determined directly, an alternative method substitutes a horizontal line drawn 2–3 cm above the proximal EGJ high-pressure zone, with distal latency taken from UES relaxation onset to the wavefront's intersection with that line (Yadlapati 2020).

In corporate emissions disclosure, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) has allowed companies, since 2015, to report Scope 2 emissions under two distinct methods: location-based, calculated as energy use multiplied by the mean emissions intensity of the local grid, and market-based, calculated from the specific energy tariffs a company purchases and adjusted for Renewable Energy Certificates where available (Weaver 2026). Where a Renewable Energy Certificate applies, market-based figures are described as "typically lower" than the corresponding location-based values, though no numeric gap is given (Weaver 2026).

Where the evidence splits

No contradictions in the current sources.

Thresholds and dose-response

In multiple sclerosis trials, CDP requires EDSS worsening to persist at 12–24 weeks to count as confirmed, with 24-week confirmation increasingly preferred over 12-week for its superior specificity and robustness (Föttinger 2026). In esophageal motility testing, the Contractile Deceleration Point is defined by a spatial cutoff: it must fall within 3 cm of the proximal aspect of the pre-swallow EGJ high-pressure zone; when it cannot be located directly, an alternative reference line is drawn 2–3 cm above that same landmark (Yadlapati 2020).

Open empirical questions

• How large is the bias introduced when the CDP fairness-metric conditioning variable is itself discriminatory, and by what magnitude does it distort the parity measurement? Not quantified in the current sources.
• What is the numeric sensitivity gain of the EDSS-Plus composite endpoint over EDSS alone in MS trials? The source states "increased sensitivity" without a figure.
• How large, in percentage or absolute terms, is the typical gap between market-based and location-based Scope 2 emissions figures for companies using Renewable Energy Certificates? Not quantified.
• What proportion of confirmed disability progression events are RAW versus PIRA, and does that ratio vary by treatment or disease stage? Not measured in the current sources.