The Incidence of Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a common neurodegenerative disorder. Epidemiological studies on the incidence of PD are important to better understand the risk factors for PD and determine the condition's natural history. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis examine the incidence of PD and its variation by age and gender. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for epidemiologic studies of PD from 2001 to 2014, as a previously published systematic review included studies published until 2001. Data were analyzed separately for age group and gender, and meta-regression was used to determine whether a significant difference was present between groups. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis of international studies showed rising incidence with age in both men and women. Significant heterogeneity was observed in the 80+ group, which may be explained by methodological differences between studies. While males had a higher incidence of PD in all age groups, this difference was only statistically significant for those in the age range 60-69 and 70-79 (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: PD incidence generally increases with age, although it may stabilize in those who are 80+.
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 | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".