A randomised controlled trial of an enhanced interdisciplinary community based group program for people with Parkinson’s disease: study rationale and protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parkinson's disease (PD) is a progressive, chronic neurodegenerative disorder for which there is no known cure. Physical exercise programs may be used to assist with the physical management of PD. Several studies have demonstrated that community based physical therapy programs are effective in reducing physical aspects of disability among people with PD. While multidisciplinary therapy interventions may have the potential to reduce disability and improve the quality of life of people with PD, there is very limited clinical trial evidence to support or refute the use of a community based multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary programs for people with PD. A two group randomized trial is being undertaken within a community rehabilitation service in Brisbane, Australia. Community dwelling adults with a diagnosis of Idiopathic Parkinson's disease are being recruited. Eligible participants are randomly allocated to a standard exercise rehabilitation group program or an intervention group which incorporates physical, cognitive and speech activities in a multi-tasking framework. Outcomes will be measured at 6-week intervals for a period of six months. Primary outcome measures are the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Timed Up and Go (TUG) cognitive test. Secondary outcomes include changes in health related quality of life, communication, social participation, mobility, strength and balance, and carer burden measures. This study will determine the immediate and long-term effectiveness of a unique multifocal, interdisciplinary, dual-tasking approach to the management of PD as compared to an exercise only program. We anticipate that the results of this study will have implications for the development of cost effective evidence based best practice for the treatment of people with PD living in the community.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.005 |
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".