MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121712371 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100007320

Clinical Practice Regarding Dopamine-Agonist Use and Driving in Parkinson's Disease

2007· article· en· W2121712371 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Rob M.A. de Bie, Janis M. Miyasaki, Anthony E. Lang, Susan H. Fox

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement DisordersUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPramipexoleRopiniroleParkinson's diseaseMedicineDopamine agonistDiseaseDemographicsDopaminergicDopaminePsychiatryPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.309 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207