Clinical Practice Regarding Dopamine-Agonist Use and Driving in Parkinson's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current Health Canada instructions for use of the dopamine agonists (DA), pramipexole and ropinirole, state that Parkinson's disease (PD) patients should be told not to drive. The objective was to assess neurologists' actual clinical practice concerning driving advice they give to PD patients starting a DA. METHODS: An online survey was created consisting of 4 items regarding demographics, 5 regarding PD and driving, and 9 regarding DA use and driving. The survey was distributed to 563 neurologists. RESULTS: In total 96 neurologists (17.9%) responded. 4.4% tell patients with PD not to drive, solely because they are taking a DA. Respondents assess the patient's tendency for excessive daytime sleepiness and sleep attacks after starting a DA more frequently than after starting other dopaminergic drugs (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: A minor proportion of the clinicians responding to our survey advise PD patients not to drive, solely because they use a DA. Such being the case, we propose that current Health Canada guidelines need revision.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".