Levodopa in the treatment of Parkinson's disease: Current controversies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Levodopa is the most effective symptomatic agent in the treatment of Parkinson's disease (PD) and the "gold standard" against which new agents must be compared. However, there remain two areas of controversy: (1) whether levodopa is toxic, and (2) whether levodopa directly causes motor complications. Levodopa is toxic to cultured dopamine neurons, and this may be a problem in PD where there is evidence of oxidative stress in the nigra. However, there is little firm evidence to suggest that levodopa is toxic in vivo or in PD. Clinical trials have not clarified this situation. Levodopa is also associated with motor complications. Increasing evidence suggests that they are related, at least in part, to the short half-life of the drug (and its potential to induce pulsatile stimulation of dopamine receptors) rather than to specific properties of the molecule. Treatment strategies that provide more continuous stimulation of dopamine receptors provide reduced motor complications in MPTP monkeys and PD patients. These studies raise the possibility that more continuous and physiological delivery of levodopa might reduce the risk of motor complications. Clinical trials to test this hypothesis are underway. We review current evidence relating to these areas of controversy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".