Salivary production in Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".