Impact of sustained deprenyl (selegiline) in levodopa‐treated Parkinson's disease: A randomized placebo‐controlled extension of the deprenyl and tocopherol antioxidative therapy of parkinsonism trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deprenyl (selegiline) delays the need for levodopa therapy in patients with early Parkinson's disease, but the long-term benefits of this treatment remain unclear. During 1987 to 1988, 800 patients with early Parkinson's disease were randomized in the Deprenyl and Tocopherol Antioxidative Therapy of Parkinsonism trial to receive deprenyl, tocopherol, combined treatments, or a placebo and were then placed on active deprenyl (10mg/day). A second, independent randomization was carried out in early 1993 for 368 subjects who by that time had required levodopa and who had consented to continuing the deprenyl treatment (D subjects) or changing to a matching placebo (P subjects) under double-blind conditions. The first development of wearing off, dyskinesias, or on-off motor fluctuations was the prespecified primary outcome measure. During the average 2-year follow-up, there were no differences between the treatment groups with respect to the primary outcome measure (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.63, 1.19; p = 0.38), withdrawal from the study, death, or adverse events. Although 34% of D subjects developed dyskinesias and only 19% of P subjects did (p = 0.006), only 16% of D subjects developed freezing of gait but 29% of P subjects did (p = 0.0003). Decline in motor performance was less in D subjects than P subjects. Levodopa-treated Parkinson's disease patients who had been treated with deprenyl for up to 7 years, compared with patients who were changed to a placebo after about 5 years, experienced slower motor decline and were more likely to develop dyskinesias but less likely to develop freezing of gait.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".