A proof‐of‐concept, randomized, placebo‐controlled, multiple cross‐overs (n‐of‐1) study of naftazone in Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To explore for the first time the tolerability and efficacy of naftazone in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). Proof-of-concept, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple-cross-over n-of-1 study in patients with PD with wearing-off and dyskinesias. Naftazone was titrated up to 120 mg/day during an initial single-blind dose-finding phase. Seven patients entered the placebo-controlled phase (four consecutive 28-day cross-overs). Three outcome measures were used to collect preliminary indices of efficacy: (i) 48-h ON-OFF diaries; (ii) Unified PD Rating Scale (UPDRS) part III while ON; (iii) seven-point Likert scale to assess "patients' discomfort caused by dyskinesias" (Q1) and 'disability during OFF-periods' (Q2). A 'responder' analysis (proportion of patients with mean treatment effect [naftazone minus placebo] favoring naftazone over the 4 cross-over periods) was used. Treatment effects were derived from mixed-effects anova. On diaries, 5/7 patients responded to naftazone for 'ON-time with troublesome dyskinesia' (reduced time, treatment effect: -49 [95% CI: -93/-4] min, P = 0.03), 6/7 regarding 'ON-time without troublesome dyskinesia' (increased time, treatment effect: 35 [-19/88], P = 0.2). No trend was observed for 'OFF' time. There were 7/7 'responders' regarding UPDRSIII (reduced score, treatment effect: -2.1[-4.5/0.2], P = 0.08). The 7-point scales did not show clear trends in favor of naftazone (3/7 responders for Q1 and 4/7 for Q2). Four of the seven patients reported adverse events after randomization, mostly related to the CNS (mild: 2, severe: 2). These pilot findings are consistent with preclinical data in primates and support the hypothesis that naftazone may have antiparkinsonian and antidyskinetic effects in humans that deserve further clinical investigation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".