MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086058066 · doi:10.1159/000336054

Impact of Progression of Parkinson’s Disease on Drooling in Various Ethnic Groups

2012· article· en· W2086058066 on OpenAlexaff
Abdul Qayyum Rana, Muhammad Saad Yousuf, Naeem Awan, Abdul Fattah

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Neurology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsParkinson's Clinic of Eastern Toronto & Movement Disorders Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDroolingSialorrheaMedicineParkinson's diseaseCohortInternal medicineSwallowingPediatricsGastroenterologyDiseaseSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Drooling or sialorrhea is a common non-motor symptom of Parkinson's disease (PD), and is reported by 35-75% of patients. Drooling is primarily due to impaired swallowing rather than hypersecretion of saliva. In this study, we examined the prevalence of drooling in PD and its relation to various factors such as age, stage of disease, gender and ethnicity. METHODS: A retrospective cohort chart analysis of 307 patients with idiopathic PD was conducted. These patients were seen in the Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders Clinic between 2005 and 2010. RESULTS: 123 (40%) patients exhibited drooling. No correlation between age and development of drooling was observed. However, gender was found to be a significant factor in developing sialorrhea. Males are twice as more likely to develop sialorrhea than females. In addition, drooling becomes more prevalent with disease progression; Hoehn and Yahr stage 4 patients being the most at risk. Ethnicity and immigration status have no relationship in developing drooling. CONCLUSIONS: Sialorrhea is seen in a significant number of PD patients. This study, to the best of our knowledge, is the most extensive clinical assessment of drooling in PD to date.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 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

Citations25
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean NeurologySame topicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207