MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060750200 · doi:10.2147/ce.s7031

Carbidopa/levodopa/entacapone: the evidence for its place in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease

2009· article· en· W2060750200 on OpenAlexaff
Markos Poulopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueCore evidence · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntacaponeDyskinesiaLevodopaCarbidopaParkinson's diseaseMedicineTolerabilityRopiniroleAdverse effectAromatic L-amino acid decarboxylaseDopaminePramipexolePharmacologyCatechol-O-methyl transferaseAnesthesiaInternal medicineDiseaseChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbidopa/levodopa/entacapone: the evidence for its place in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease Markos Poulopoulos, Cheryl WatersDepartment of Neurology, Division of Movement Disorders, Columbia University Medical Center, Neurological Institute of New York, Center of Parkinson’s Disease and Other Movement Disorders, New York, NY, USAIntroduction: Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a common neurodegenerative disease. In the 1960s, it was shown that the degeneration of dopamine producing neurons in the substantia nigra (SN) caused the motor features of PD. Dopamine replacement with levodopa, a dopamine precursor, resulted in remarkable benefit. Yet, the intermittent administration of levodopa is a major cause of motor complications, such as “wearing-off ” of levodopa’s benefit and involuntary movements, known as dyskinesia. Therefore, agents that prolong levodopa’s half-life were employed, such as carbidopa, an aromatic amino acid decarboxylase (AADC) inhibitor, and entacapone, a catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) inhibitor. The combination product carbidopa/levodopa/entacapone (CLE) was approved in 2003 for the treatment of PD patients.Aims: To assess the evidence for the place of CLE in the treatment of PD.Evidence review: CLE has a good efficacy, safety and tolerability profile, similar to that of entacapone taken separately with carbidopa/levodopa (CL). Compared to CL alone, it prolongs levodopa’s benefit, and improves the quality of life but not the motor performance in PD patients with nondebilitating “wearing-off ” or dyskinesia. However, it increases the dyskinesia rate in early PD patients, and has adverse events in advanced patients with significant motor complications. There is insufficient evidence regarding cost-effectiveness.Place in therapy: CLE is an attractive alternative for patients with nondisabling “wearing-off ” or dyskinesia taking CL with or without entacapone. It cannot be recommended for early PD patients, as it can induce more dyskinesia than CL alone, or in any patients who seem to have more adverse events.Keywords: Parkinson’s disease, levodopa, entacapone, carbidopa, treatment

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.189
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations17
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCore evidenceSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207