The non‐motor side of the honeymoon period of Parkinson's disease and its relationship with quality of life: a 4‐year longitudinal study
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".