A Randomized Trial of Oral and Transdermal Rivastigmine for Postural Instability in Parkinson Disease Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of oral and transdermal rivastigmine for postural instability in patients with Parkinson disease dementia (PDD) who were candidates for a cholinesterase inhibitor. The primary outcome was the change in mean velocity of the center of pressure (CoP) after 6 months. Secondary outcomes included structural parameters of dynamic posturography, clinical rating scales, and adverse events requiring dose reduction. METHODS: Patients with PDD were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to oral or transdermal rivastigmine with target doses of 6 mg twice daily and 9.5 mg/10 cm daily, respectively. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and 6 months. Results were compared within and between groups. RESULTS: Nineteen patients completed the study (n = 8 oral, n = 11 transdermal). Mean daily doses of 9.4 (±1.5 mg) and 16.4 (±3.6 mg) were achieved in the oral and transdermal groups, respectively. The transdermal group demonstrated a significant 15.8% decrease in mean velocity of CoP (patch: P < 0.05; oral: 10.0% decrease, P = 0.16) in the most difficult scenario (eyes closed with sway-referenced support). There was no difference between groups (P = 0.27). For structural parameters, significant improvements were seen in the mean duration of peaks (patch) and interpeak distance (oral) in the most difficult condition. No changes were observed in clinical rating scales. Six patients experienced nonserious adverse events requiring dose reduction (n = 5 oral; n = 1 transdermal). CONCLUSIONS: Rivastigmine may improve certain elements of postural control, notably the mean velocity of CoP. Benefits appear to be more obvious under more taxing sensory conditions.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".