Methylphenidate improves fatigue scores in Parkinson disease: A randomized controlled trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fatigue is a common nonmotor symptom in idiopathic Parkinson disease (IPD) that can prominently affect everyday function. This study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating methylphenidate for the treatment of fatigue in patients with IPD maintained on their regular medications. Thirty-six patients were randomized to receive either methylphenidate (10 mg three times per day; n = 17) or placebo (n = 19) for 6 weeks. Primary outcomes were the change from baseline on two separate self-report fatigue questionnaires: the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) and the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI). Secondary outcomes included the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor score and the five individual domains of the MFI. Fourteen patients in the methylphenidate group and 16 patients in the control group remained on the intervention for the entire study period. In the treatment arm, mean FSS score was reduced by 6.5 points (from a baseline of 43.8) and mean MFI score was reduced by 8.4 points (from a baseline of 51.0). Both these reductions were significant (P < 0.04). Smaller reductions in the placebo group were nonsignificant. Mean UPDRS motor score did not change significantly in either group. Analysis of MFI subscores showed a significant reduction in General Fatigue in the methylphenidate group (P < 0.001). Overall, adverse effects of medication were more frequent in the placebo group. In conclusion, methylphenidate was effective in lowering fatigue scores in patients with IPD following a 6-week treatment period.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it