Postural Disorders and Antiparkinsonian Treatments in Parkinson Disease: An Exploratory Case-Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between antiparkinsonian treatments, especially dopamine agonist (DAs) and the development of postural disorders in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). METHODS: We performed an exploratory case-control study. Cases were PD patients with camptocormia, Pisa syndrome, or anterocollis. Control subjects were PD patients without postural disorders matched by sex and age. Demographic and clinical data including pharmacologic treatments history were collected retrospectively. Characteristics of cases and control subjects were compared using parametric and nonparametric tests accordingly, and logistic regression models were used to analyze correlations. RESULTS: We included 63 patients with PD and postural disorders and 63 control subjects. Cases were more exposed to DAs (74.60% vs 58.73%, P = 0.05) and amantadine (30.16% vs 7.94%, P < 0.05) than control subjects. Cases showed longer disease duration (7.63 ± 7.83 vs 4.27 ± 3.87 years, P < 0.05), higher Hoehn and Yahr stage (2.83 ± 0.80 vs 2.15 ± 0.73, P < 0.05), higher Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part III score (29.61 ± 1.39 vs 20.76 ± 10.94, P = 0.05), and more dyslipidemia (28.57% vs 12.70%, P < 0.05) than control subjects, as well as lower prevalence of depression (46.03% vs 28.57%, P < 0.05). We found no clinical predictors for the development of postural disorders after multivariable adjusted regression. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a possible association between the use of DAs and amantadine and the development of postural disorders in PD and suggest potential risk factors including advanced disease and more severe motor symptoms. These results support the need of a cautious use of these medications in patients with advanced disease due to the possibility of increasing the risk-benefit ratio.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".