Randomized, blind, controlled trial of transdermal rotigotine in early Parkinson disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind study was performed to compare the safety and efficacy of the once-daily dopamine agonist rotigotine, in a continuous-dosing transdermal-patch formulation, vs placebo in patients with early-stage Parkinson disease (PD). METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive placebo (n = 96) or rotigotine (n = 181), starting at 2 mg/24 h (10-cm(2) patch size; 4.5-mg total drug content), titrated weekly up to 6 mg/24 h (30-cm(2) patch size; 13.5-mg total drug content), and then maintained for 6 months. The primary efficacy measures were 1) the change in the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) scores (parts II and III) from baseline to end of treatment and 2) responder rates (patients with > or =20% improvement). RESULTS: Patients receiving rotigotine had a mean absolute difference of 5.28 (+/-1.18) points lower in UPDRS subtotal scores compared with those receiving placebo (p < 0.0001). The mean change in part III motor scores was -3.50 (+/-7.26) (n = 177) and was the greatest contributor to UPDRS improvement. The rotigotine group had more responders (48 vs 19%; p < 0.0001). The most commonly reported adverse events were application site reactions (44% rotigotine vs 12% placebo), nausea (41 vs17%), somnolence (33 vs 20%), and dizziness (19 vs 13%), and most were mild or moderate in intensity. CONCLUSIONS: Transdermal rotigotine, when titrated to a dosage of 6 mg/24 h, was effective for the treatment of early-stage Parkinson disease in this trial. Adverse events were similar to those found with other transdermal systems and dopamine agonists.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".