MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968104857 · doi:10.1002/mds.1085

Transdermal dopaminergic D<sub>2</sub> receptor agonist therapy in Parkinson's disease with N‐0923 TDS: A double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study

2001· article· en· W1968104857 on OpenAlexaff
J. Thomas Hutton, Leo Verhagen Metman, Thomas N. Chase, Jorge L. Juncos, William C. Koller, Rajesh Pahwa, Peter A. LeWitt, Ali Samii, Joseph Tsui, Donald B. Calne, Cheryl Waters, Vincent P. Calabrese, James P. Bennett, Richard J. Barrett, Jerry L. Morris

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLevodopaPlaceboRotigotineDopaminergicParkinson's diseaseTransdermalAgonistMedicineDopamine agonistInternal medicineAnesthesiaPharmacologyGastroenterologyDopamineDiseaseReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

N-0923 is a non-ergot, dopaminergic D(2) agonist designed to be transdermally available. It has anti-parkinsonian effects when infused intravenously. An adhesive matrix patch was developed to deliver N-0923 transdermally (N-0923 TDS). In this phase II trial, we evaluated the effectiveness of various doses of N-0923 TDS at replacing levodopa. Eighty-five Parkinson's disease (PD) patients were randomized to placebo or one of four doses of N-0923 TDS for 21 days. Change in daily levodopa dose was the primary efficacy measure. Significantly greater reductions in levodopa dose were achieved as compared to placebo for the two highest doses of N-0923 TDS. Patients treated with 33.5 mg and 67 mg N-0923 TDS decreased levodopa use by 26% and 28%, vs. 7% for placebo. N-0923 TDS was safe and well tolerated.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement DisordersSame topicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207