MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113443732 · doi:10.1002/mds.20189

Salivary production in Parkinson's disease

2004· article· en· W2113443732 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParkinson's diseaseMedicineProduction (economics)DiseasePsychologyPathologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypersialorrhea is a common phenomenon in Parkinson disease (PD). The objective of this study was to determine whether patients with PD had an abnormally increased production of saliva and whether the production of saliva could be associated to factors related to either the disease characteristics or to its treatment. A total of 83 patients with PD and 55 control subjects participated in this study. Because of the age difference between the two groups, comparisons were made on a +/-2-year age-matched sample of 44 PD patients and 44 control subjects. PD patients produced significantly less saliva than control subjects. Correlations were obtained with the 83 PD patients between unstimulated salivary flow and patients characteristics. When controlling for age, sex, and Hoehn and Yahr scale, decreased production of saliva correlated significantly with the dose of levodopa and the symptoms of xerostomia. When controlling for medications, there was no relationship between the production of saliva and the evolution of the disease. This study shows that patients with PD produce less saliva than normal. Factors influencing the production of saliva include the use of levodopa and female gender. Our results may have implications for the treatment of drooling in 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.229 · 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