Effects of rasagiline on the progression of nonmotor scores of the MDS‐UPDRS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A draft version of part 1 (Non-Motor Aspects of Experiences of Daily Living; nM-EDL) of the MDS-UPDRS scale was employed as a secondary outcome in the ADAGIO study, which assessed the effect of rasagiline in early Parkinson's disease (PD) patients. METHODS: This analysis includes 1,150 untreated PD patients randomized to placebo or rasagiline 1 or 2 mg/day for 36 weeks in the placebo-controlled phase of ADAGIO who had draft-nM-EDL assessments at baseline and week 36. RESULTS: Over the 9-month placebo-controlled phase of the study, nM-EDL scores significantly deteriorated from baseline in the placebo group only (0.34 ± 0.10 units; P < 0.001). Compared to the placebo group (n = 583), there was significantly less deterioration in the 1-mg/day rasagiline group (n = 280; treatment effect: -0.33 units; P < 0.05), whereas the treatment effect in the 2-mg/day rasagiline group (n = 287) was not statistically significant (-0.25 ± 0.17 units; P = 0.131). CONCLUSIONS: The nM-EDL subscale appears sensitive to change in very early PD, and treatment with rasagiline 1 mg/day was associated with significantly less decline in nonmotor experiences of daily living versus placebo. Given that score changes were numerically small, the clinical implications of this effect remain unclear.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".