Differential response of speed, amplitude, and rhythm to dopaminergic medications in Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although movement impairment in Parkinson's disease includes slowness (bradykinesia), decreased amplitude (hypokinesia), and dysrhythmia, clinicians are instructed to rate them in a combined 0-4 severity scale using the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale motor subscale. The objective was to evaluate whether bradykinesia, hypokinesia, and dysrhythmia are associated with differential motor impairment and response to dopaminergic medications in patients with Parkinson's disease. Eighty five Parkinson's disease patients performed finger-tapping (item 23), hand-grasping (item 24), and pronation-supination (item 25) tasks OFF and ON medication while wearing motion sensors on the most affected hand. Speed, amplitude, and rhythm were rated using the Modified Bradykinesia Rating Scale. Quantitative variables representing speed (root mean square angular velocity), amplitude (excursion angle), and rhythm (coefficient of variation) were extracted from kinematic data. Fatigue was measured as decrements in speed and amplitude during the last 5 seconds compared with the first 5 seconds of movement. Amplitude impairments were worse and more prevalent than speed or rhythm impairments across all tasks (P < .001); however, in the ON state, speed scores improved exclusively by clinical (P < 10(-6) ) and predominantly by quantitative (P < .05) measures. Motor scores from OFF to ON improved in subjects who were strictly bradykinetic (P < .01) and both bradykinetic and hypokinetic (P < 10(-6) ), but not in those strictly hypokinetic. Fatigue in speed and amplitude was not improved by medication. Hypokinesia is more prevalent than bradykinesia, but dopaminergic medications predominantly improve the latter. Parkinson's disease patients may show different degrees of impairment in these movement components, which deserve separate measurement in research studies. © 2011 Movement Disorder Society.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".