Pramipexole use and the risk of pneumonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with Parkinson's disease have an elevated risk of pneumonia and randomized trials suggest that this risk may be increased with the dopamine agonist pramipexole. It is uncertain whether pramipexole or other dopamine agonists increase the risk of pneumonia. METHODS: We used the United Kingdom's General Practice Research Database (GPRD) to identify users of anti-parkinsonian drugs, 40-89 years of age, between 1997 and 2009. Using a nested case-control approach, all incident cases hospitalised for pneumonia were matched with up to ten controls selected among the cohort members. Rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of pneumonia associated with current use of dopamine agonists were estimated using conditional logistic regression, adjusted for covariates. RESULTS: The cohort included 13,183 users of anti-parkinsonian drugs, with 1,835 newly diagnosed with pneumonia during follow-up (rate 40.9 per 1,000 per year). The rate of pneumonia was not increased with the current use of pramipexole (RR 0.76; 95% CI: 0.57-1.02), compared with no use. The use of pramipexole was not associated with an increased rate of pneumonia when compared with all other dopamine agonists collectively (RR 0.85; 95% CI: 0.62-1.17). CONCLUSIONS: The use of pramipexole does not appear to increase the risk of pneumonia.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".