MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050439782 · doi:10.1177/1756285608101378

Review: Therapeutic options for continuous dopaminergic stimulation in Parkinson's disease

2009· article· en· W2050439782 on OpenAlexaff
O.K. Sujith, Carol J. Lane

Bibliographic record

VenueTherapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDopaminergicDopamineLevodopaMedicineNeuroscienceParkinson's diseaseStimulationDopamine receptorDopaminergic pathwaysDiseasePharmacologyPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Treatment of Parkinson's disease aims to replace dopaminergic transmission at striatal synapses. In the normal state, nigral neurons fire continuously, exposing striatal dopamine receptors to relatively constant levels of dopamine. In the disease state, periodic dosing and the short half-life of antiparkinsonian drugs leads to more intermittent stimulation. Abnormal pulsatile stimulation of striatal dopamine receptors may lead to dysregulation of genes and proteins in downstream neurons and consequently, alterations in neuronal firing patterns. This may ultimately lead to motor complications. In order to prevent the development of motor complications a therapy that provides continuous dopaminergic stimulation as observed in the normal state would be ideal. Different routes of administration of levodopa and other dopaminergic drugs have been tried to achieve continuous dopaminergic stimulation (CDS). This review discusses the various methods available to achieve this goal with particular emphasis on duodenal dopa administration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTherapeutic Advances in Neurological DisordersSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207