Methylphenidate Increases the Motor Effects of L-Dopa in Parkinson's Disease: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We determined whether methylphenidate, a dopamine transporter blocker, modifies motor, cognitive, or affective responses to L-Dopa in Parkinson's disease (PD). Five patients who reported benefit from L-Dopa/carbidopa and motor fluctuations were admitted and withdrawn from their usual antiparkinsonian medications. On 3 consecutive days in a randomized double-blinded fashion, they took 0.2 mg/kg oral methylphenidate or placebo followed 30 minutes later by a 1-hour intravenous L-Dopa (2 mg/kg per h) or placebo infusion. Vital signs, tapping, walking, dyskinesias, mood, anxiety, concentration, and arousal were monitored every 30 minutes. Cognitive testing was performed before and following the infusion. Methylphenidate combined with L-Dopa led to greater peak right-hand tapping speed than either alone. Dyskinesia severity increased most when methylphenidate and L-Dopa were co-administered. There were no differences between conditions on the Stroop test, digit ordering, simple reaction time, or covert orienting of attention validity effect. Methylphenidate alone led to improvement in choice reaction time. Change in self-assessed analogue ratings of mood, anxiety, arousal, or concentration did not differ between conditions. Methylphenidate increased the motor effects of L-Dopa with minimal effects on cognitive or affective functions, suggesting a physiologic role for the dopamine transporter in patients with PD with motor fluctuations.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".