MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108397344 · doi:10.1586/14737175.2014.936388

Management of anxiety and motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease

2014· review· en· W2108397344 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Coakeley, Kaylena A. Ehgoetz Martens, Quincy J. Almeida

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Neurotherapeutics · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyMotor symptomsParkinson's diseaseDiseasePsychologyNeuroscienceClinical psychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parkinson's disease (PD) is typically known for its cardinal motor symptoms, but a growing body of literature is recognizing a multitude of important nonmotor symptoms as well. Anxiety is one of the most common nonmotor symptoms of PD; unfortunately, neither the management of anxiety nor its influence on motor symptoms is well understood. While recent literature indicates a correlation between motor symptoms and anxiety in PD, it remains uncertain whether one symptom acts as the underlying cause of the other. This review considers the cyclic interaction between anxiety and motor symptoms in PD, each exacerbating the other when they coexist. It may be critically important to disentangle if one symptom serves as an underlying cause of the other, since this might dictate appropriate treatment. Neuroanatomical substrates as well as the treatments for both motor symptoms and anxiety are discussed in detail to consider the evidence-base for the management of PD.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations26
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of NeurotherapeuticsSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207