Tapping and Peg Insertion after Levodopa Intake in Treated and <i>de novo</i> Parkinsonian Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Investigators use instrumental tasks for objective assessment of parkinsonian motor disability and its drug response. To date, such studies on treated parkinsonian patients have not addressed acute and long-term effects of dopaminergic drugs. OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of long-term dopaminergic therapy within a standardized levodopa challenge test design in combination with two repeatedly performed instrumental tasks, peg insertion and tapping, in previously treated and untreated parkinsonian patients. RESULTS: Tapping significantly deteriorated in previously untreated, but not in treated parkinsonian patients after levodopa intake. In contrast, motor symptoms and peg insertion significantly improved in both groups of parkinsonian patients. Results of both tests differed between parkinsonian patients and matched controls. CONCLUSION: Worsening of cognitively less demanding tapping may result from upregulated presynaptic inhibitory feedback regulation, sedative effects of levodopa or dopamine overflow in untreated parkinsonian patients, who are sensitive to these effects in contrast to treated parkinsonian patients. Tapping is a task with autonomic repetitive performance and programming of standardised movements with a low need for cognitive effort. This autonomic functioning of attentional control and selective processing is intact in Parkinson's disease. Peg insertion depends on more complex movements and thus hypothetically on dopamine-associated cognitive processes. Therefore, impairment of peg insertion responded to dopaminergic stimulation in both groups of parkinsonian patients. Future studies on the efficacy of antiparkinsonian drugs, using instrumental tasks for objective assessment, should consider long-term impact of antiparkinsonian drug therapy and associated cognitive efforts.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".