MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2621101885 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2017.150

P.066 Intrajejunal levodopa infusion (ILI) for Parkinson’s Disease (PD): a Canadian experience

2017· article· en· W2621101885 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Peter Podgorny, Patrick McCann, K Toore, Genise Tremain, Adriana Lazarescu, Oksana Suchowersky

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsAlberta Hospital EdmontonCalgary Laboratory Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineParkinson's diseaseLevodopaMotor functionTertiary careSurgeryPediatricsDiseasePhysical therapyInternal medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: ILI has been in use in Canada since 2011 to treat advanced PD. We review the benefits and complications of ILI for PD in a tertiary movement disorders center in Canada. Methods: Detailed chart review of patients treated with ILI at including motor UPDRS scores, ILI pump and PEG-J tube complications. Patients and caregivers were interviewed at regular clinic follow up about their experience with ILI. Results: 13 patients received ILI [10M, 3F; mean age 65.6 yrs, range (51.8-79.5); PD duration 14.2 yrs, range (9.1-22.0); mean follow-up 1.8 yrs, range (0.2-4.8)]. Patients reported improvement in motor function, decreased dyskinesias and ‘OFF times’ [mean motor UPDRS: pre-ILI 37.1, 1-6months post-ILI 27.5]. Common complications included dislodgement, knotting or blockage of the jejunal tube extension requiring endoscopic re- insertion (29 incidents in 6 patients over 5 yrs). Four patients discontinued Duodopa treatment, for reasons of declining cognition, inability to care for the pump, and/or minimal benefit. Conclusions: ILI is useful for the treatment of advanced PD, in patients that can care for the pump apparatus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→