A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Three Drug Regimens on Cognitive Performance of Patients with Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"In the present study, the effectiveness of 3 drug regimen on cognitive performance of PD patients was compared. 12 patients who had been using pramipexole, levodopa and amantadine for at least 1 month entered the study and compared with those 12 who had been using trihexiphenidyle, levodopa and amantadine. There was also a control group including 11 patients who had been using only levodopa and amantadine. All 3 groups were asked to answer Montreal Cognitive Assessment in pretest phase. Then patients in experimental groups were asked not to use pramipexole or trihexiphenidyle for 72 hours and then all 3 groups were asked to answer the same questionnaire in post test phase. The results showed that patients who have used pramipexole had better performance in executive functions in post test. The findings suggest that pramipexole in combination with levodopa and amantadine may worsen the executive function in Parkinson’s disease; however, there is almost neither adverse nor beneficial effect of trihexiphenidyl in such a combination on cognition in PD patients."
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".