Sleep Duration and “on” Time during Different Periods of the Day and Night in Patients with Advanced Parkinson's Disease Receiving Adjunctive Ropinirole Prolonged Release
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients undergoing long-term therapy for PD often experience motor fluctuations and nocturnal disturbances. In a post-hoc analysis, we explored effects of ropinirole prolonged release on sleep, night-time awakenings, and "on" time over 24 hours. Patients with advanced PD suboptimally controlled with L-dopa were randomized to adjunctive ropinirole prolonged release (2-24 mg/day) or placebo for 24 weeks. Awake/asleep and, if awake, "on"/"off" status was recorded via diary cards. At week 24 last observation carried forward, changes in nighttime or daytime sleep duration were not significantly different between treatments. Of patients with baseline awakenings, a significantly higher proportion in the ropinirole prolonged release group had a reduction in awakenings versus placebo. Patients receiving ropinirole prolonged release had a significantly greater increase in amount/percentage of awake time "on"/"on" without troublesome dyskinesia during all periods assessed (including night-time and early morning), versus placebo, and higher odds for being "on" on waking. Adjunctive once-daily ropinirole prolonged release may help provide 24-hour symptom control in patients with advanced PD not optimally controlled with L-dopa.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".