A systematic review and mixed treatment comparison of monotherapy in early Parkinson’s disease: implications for Latin America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parkinson's disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disease. There are no clinical trials comparing all available pharmacological therapies for the treatment of early PD. The objective of this review is to indirectly analyze the efficacy of antiparkinson drugs currently available in Latin America. A systematic review was performed exploring only placebo-controlled randomized trials comparing antiparkinson monotherapy (levodopa, pramipexole, rasagiline, or selegiline) in patients with PD on Hoehn and Yahr stages I through III published from January 1994 to May 2014. The primary outcome was the mean change in the Unified PD Rating Scale (UPDRS) I, II and III. A mixed treatment comparison analysis (indirect comparisons) through a random-effects model was performed. Levodopa demonstrated the highest effects in terms of UPDRS score improvement both from baseline and when compared to other treatments. Levodopa showed a 60.1% probability of granting the greatest reduction in UPDRS I, II and III.
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 | 0.020 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".