MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091956683 · doi:10.1038/clpt.2008.143

Thorough QT/QTc Study in Patients With Advanced Parkinson's Disease: Cardiac Safety of Rotigotine

2008· article· en· W2091956683 on OpenAlexaff
Marek Malík, J-O Andreas, Katerina Hnatkova, J Hoeckendorff, Willi Cawello, M. V. Middle, R. Horstmann, Michael Braun

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsSaint Paul University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQT intervalRotigotineMedicineMoxifloxacinPlaceboInternal medicineAnesthesiaCardiologyHeart rateConfidence intervalParkinson's diseaseDiseaseAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Citations79
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Pharmacology & TherapeuticsSame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207