Ipratropium bromide spray as treatment for sialorrhea in Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sialorrhea is a significant problem in advanced Parkinson's disease (PD). Current treatment options include systemic anticholinergics which frequently cause side effects. We hypothesized that sublingual application of ipratropium bromide spray, an anticholinergic agent that does not cross the blood brain barrier, may reduce drooling without systemic side effects. We performed a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study in 17 subjects with PD and bothersome drooling. Patients were randomized to receive ipratropium bromide or placebo (one to two sprays, maximum of four times per day) for 2 weeks followed by a 1 week washout and crossover for further 2 weeks of treatment. The primary outcome was an objective measure of weight of saliva production. Secondary outcomes were subjective rating of severity and frequency of sialorrhoea using home diaries, United Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) part II salivation subscore, parkinsonian disability using UPDRS, and adverse events. Ipratropium bromide spray had no significant effect on weight of saliva produced. There was a mild effect of treatment on subjective measures of sialorrhea. There were no significant adverse events. Ipratropium bromide spray was well tolerated in subjects with PD. Although it did not affect objective measures of saliva production, further studies in parkinsonism may be warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".