Open-Label Study of Sleep Disturbances in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease Treated with Rasagiline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of sleep disturbances among patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) is estimated to occur in 37% to 98% of patients. Sleep disturbances have been associated with a reduced quality of life for patients with PD. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of rasagiline treatment on the severity of sleep disturbances among patients with idiopathic PD. METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre study, 110 adult patients with idiopathic PD were treated with rasagiline either as monotherapy or as adjunct therapy. The primary endpoint was the change in severity of sleep disturbances, assessed with the PD Sleep Scale from baseline to month 2. Exploratory endpoints included change in daytime sleepiness, assessed with the Epworth Sleep Scale, treatment satisfaction measured with the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication, patient's overall improvement or deterioration over time measured with the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement, tolerability, and safety. FINDINGS: Patients treated with rasagiline as mono- or adjunct therapy showed a statistically significant improvement in sleep quality after 2 months. There was no change in daytime sleepiness. Overall, patients were satisfied with rasagiline treatment with a mean Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication [standard deviation] total score at month 2 of 68% [16.1]. At the end of study, 64 patients (65.9%) were judged, by the investigator, as being at least minimally improved from baseline on the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement. Rasagiline was safe and well-tolerated. INTERPRETATION: Rasagiline as mono- or adjunct-therapy may improve sleep experience in patients with PD in the short term.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".