MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

When the going gets tough: how to select patients with Parkinson's disease for advanced therapies

2013· review· en· W2117383513 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

VenuePractical Neurology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity Hospital Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLevodopaDeep brain stimulationMedicineApomorphineParkinson's diseaseCarbidopaAdverse effectDiseaseTransdermalIntensive care medicineMotor symptomsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPharmacologyDopamineDopaminergicInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Levodopa-induced motor complications of Parkinson's disease, including motor fluctuations and dyskinesias, become increasingly frequent as the disease progresses, and are often disabling. Oral and transdermal therapies have limited efficacy in controlling these problems. Advanced device-aided therapies, including continuous infusion of apomorphine, deep brain stimulation and levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel can all ameliorate these complications. This review summarises the principles of each of these therapies, their modes of action, efficacy and adverse effects, and gives advice on timely identification of suitable patients and how to decide on the most appropriate therapy for a given patient.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.290 · 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