Repetitive and impulsive behaviors in treated Parkinson disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are few disorders in which the interface between neurology and psychiatry has been more interesting, challenging, and illuminating, providing a greater portal into the physiology of behavior, than Parkinson disease (PD). Depression has been a major focus, but needs much more study. Dementia has attracted increasing attention, especially with the recognition of dementia with Lewy bodies as a common disorder. Anxiety, apathy, sleep disorders, fatigue, and personality also deserve more attention. In this issue, two articles1,2 add important clinical information on yet another fascinating set of disorders, only recently recognized: repetitive behavior syndromes. These are, primarily, pathologic gambling, shopping, and hypersexuality, and are related to the drug treatment of the motor symptoms of PD, specifically treatment with dopamine agonists.1,2 Repetitive behavior disorders with the drug treatment of PD have been recognized since 1994,3 with a report describing punding, a peculiar stereotyped behavior characterized by an intense fascination with a repetitive activity.4 Punding activities have been as varied as sorting collections, grooming, hoarding, repeatedly calculating sums, reading can labels in supermarkets, and reciting empty monologues. While initially considered rare, punding occurred in 17% of patients with PD taking high doses of dopaminergic drugs.5 Although hypersexuality was identified in the early days of l-dopa,6 …
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".