Double‐blind study of pardoprunox, a new partial dopamine agonist, in early Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the efficacy and safety of the partial dopamine agonist, pardoprunox (SLV308), in the treatment of patients with early Parkinson's disease (PD). Patients were randomized to receive pardoprunox (n = 69) or placebo (n = 70). Pardoprunox was titrated to each patient's optimal dose (9-45 mg/d) over 2 to 6 weeks and then maintained at this dose for a further 3 weeks. Concomitant anti-Parkinson treatment was not permitted. In the primary analysis, Unified PD Rating Scale (UPDRS)-Motor score was improved in pardoprunox-treated patients (overall mean dose 23.8 mg/d; -7.3 points), as compared with placebo (-3.0 points; P = 0.0001), from baseline to end point. At end point, there were more responders (> or = 30% reduction in UPDRS-Motor score) in the pardoprunox group (50.7%) than in the placebo group (15.7%; P < 0.0001). In other secondary analyses, UPDRS-activities of daily living (ADL) and -ADL+Motor scores were also significantly more improved in the pardoprunox group. Nausea was reported by 32 of 68 (47.1%) pardoprunox-treated patients (vs. 3/70, 4.3%, placebo-treated patients), with dizziness, somnolence, headache, and asthenia also reported by > or = 10 patients. In this exploratory proof-of-concept study, pardoprunox significantly improved motor function in patients with early PD. The efficacy and safety profile of pardoprunox justifies its further investigation in PD.
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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".