Evaluating the Acute Contributions of Dopaminergic Replacement to Gait With Obstacles in Parkinson's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of dopaminergic replacement (DR) on gait in people with Parkinson's disease (PD) is well documented. However, little is known about the acute effects of dopamine on more complex locomotor tasks that require visual guidance to avoid obstacles during gait. The authors investigated the influence of DR on locomotor behavior in a task where movement planning and control might be challenged by the height of the obstacle. The PD group included patients diagnosed with idiopathic PD (n = 12), as well as healthy controls (n = 12). Patients walked and stepped over obstacles of different heights before (OFF) and after (ON) levodopa intake. Spatial adjustments were not modulated by DR, but the step time to perform these anticipatory gait adjustments was longer only in PD-OFF (compared with healthy controls) when approaching the highest obstacle, but not PD-ON. During the crossing phase, trail limb toe clearance of PD patients was shorter than healthy controls only during the OFF state. ON-OFF comparisons were significantly different only for the time to reach the lead foot clearance over the highest obstacle. In summary, DR partially improved movement slowness but did not directly affect movement amplitude of lower limb regulation in this gait task.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".