Neuropathy as a potential complication of levodopa use in Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence and potential etiologies of peripheral neuropathy (PN) in patients with Parkinson's Disease (PD) is unknown. We examined for presence of PN in patients with PD. From a PD patient population of 500 patients screened for features of symptomatic PN, patients were further selected for clinical, electrophysiological, and laboratory studies related to PN. This PD patient population with idiopathic PN (PD-IPN) was compared to a group of PD patients without PN (PD-only), and a large group of patients without PD with idiopathic PN (IPN) for abnormalities in Cbl, fasting homocysteine (Hcy), and fasting methylmalonic acid (MMA) levels. PD-IPN and IPN patients identified with abnormalities in Cbl, Hcy, or MMA levels were treated with intramuscular Cbl for 1 to 2 years. Of 49 PD patients with symptomatic PN, 34 patients (69%) had PD-IPN, and 32/34 (94%) had abnormal Hcy or MMA levels as compared to 26/258 (10%) of IPN patients. Cumulative lifetime L-dopa dosage and fasting MMA levels were associated with PN severity. Cbl therapy led to improvements in Hcy and MMA levels in all groups, and PN in PD-IPN patients stabilized during therapy. PN in PD patients may be associated with iatrogenic Cbl metabolic abnormalities. Alternatively PN may be a peripheral nervous system manifestation of PD.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".