Thorough QT/QTc Study in Patients With Advanced Parkinson's Disease: Cardiac Safety of Rotigotine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The potential effects of the dopamine agonist rotigotine on cardiac repolarization were studied in patients with Parkinson's disease, which affects electrocardiogram (ECG) quality. The parallel-group trial was double-blind and placebo- and positive (moxifloxacin 400 mg)-controlled. After two 24-h baseline ECGs, patients were randomized to rotigotine (n = 66) or placebo (n = 64). Twenty four-hour ECGs were recorded on days 14/15, 21/22, 28/29, 35/36, and 42/43 of a regimen involving weekly dose escalations of 4 mg/24 h (4 mg/24 h-24 mg/24 h). In 10-s ECGs (n = 357,948) selected from 24-h records, QT measurements were manually verified and individually rate-corrected (QTc). Assay sensitivity showed maximum mean 13.5 ms QTc prolongation after moxifloxacin with 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.8-15.2 ms. Rotigotine vs. placebo differences in time-matched changes from baseline (54 data points/24 h) showed mean effects close to zero with upper one-sided 95% CI <5 ms. Accurate, thorough QTc studies are possible even in patients with diseases that profoundly affect ECG quality. Rotigotine in supra- and therapeutic doses was shown not to affect cardiac repolarization.
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) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".