The non‐motor side of the honeymoon period of Parkinson's disease and its relationship with quality of life: a 4‐year longitudinal study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Very little is known about the progression of non-motor symptoms (NMSs) in Parkinson's disease (PD) and there are no longitudinal studies exploring this topic from the earliest stage, when patients receive the diagnosis. We here report on the progression of NMSs over 4 years from diagnosis in a cohort of de-novo, previously untreated, patients with PD. METHODS: Consecutive de-novo (disease duration < 2 years), untreated patients with PD were enrolled in this observational study. Evaluations were then scheduled every 2 years and included assessment of motor and non-motor features as well as of quality of life measures. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were prospectively followed-up for 4 years from diagnosis. The majority of NMSs increased over time and significantly affected quality of life, whereas motor disability did not. There was no significant association between NMSs and dopaminergic therapy in terms of both drug class and total levodopa-equivalent daily dosage. Excessive daytime sleepiness was the only NMS correlating with therapy with dopamine agonists. Female patients were more likely to have worse quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Non-motor symptoms significantly increase over time, with a different progression rate for each one. NMSs significantly affect quality of life in PD and we here demonstrated that this was especially the case when patients were in their (motor) honeymoon period. Future trials should target non-dopaminergic networks and consider NMSs in their outcomes.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it