Caffeine in Parkinson's disease: A pilot open‐label, dose‐escalation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Epidemiologic studies consistently find an inverse association between caffeine use and PD. Numerous explanations exist, but are difficult to evaluate as caffeine's symptomatic effect and tolerability in PD are unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We designed an open-label, 6-week dose-escalation study of caffeine to establish dose tolerability and evaluate potential motor/nonmotor benefits. Caffeine was started at 200 mg daily and was increased to a maximum of 1,000 mg. RESULTS: Of 25 subjects, 20 tolerated 200 mg, 17 tolerated 400 mg, 7 tolerated 800 mg, and 3 tolerated 1,000 mg. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal discomfort, anxiety, and worsening/emerging tremor. At 400 mg daily, we found potential improvements in motor manifestations and somnolence (UPDRS III: -4.5 ± 4.6, P = 0.003; Epworth: -2.0 ± 3.0, P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: Maximum dose tolerability for caffeine in PD appears to be 100 to 200 mg BID. We found pilot preliminary evidence that caffeine may improve some motor and nonmotor aspects of PD, which must be confirmed in longer term, placebo-controlled, clinical trials.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".