Understanding, Impact, and Communication of “Off” Periods in Parkinson's Disease: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Off periods are a common and disabling symptom of Parkinson's disease. We reviewed published research on understanding, impact, and communication regarding off periods to identify issues warranting further research. Methods We performed a scoping review, searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from 2006 to January 2018 for studies examining the impact of, understanding of, or communication about off periods. Results Twenty‐six papers met eligibility criteria. Twenty‐three studies evaluated the impact or experience of off periods in patients, three evaluated the impact upon carepartners, two papers addressed understanding of off periods, one study evaluated communication about off periods, and three studies evaluated a facilitator of communication about off periods. The findings indicate that (1) off periods are among the most troublesome symptoms to patients and that their impact on activities is broad; (2) the understanding of off periods by patients, carepartners, and nurses may be suboptimal; and (3) questionnaires hold promise as a mechanism for facilitating communication given the findings that they may enhance the detection of off periods and are rated as useful by physicians. No studies evaluated interventions to promote knowledge about off periods, and no studies identified barriers of communication about off periods. Conclusions There is a paucity of knowledge regarding the lived experiences of off periods, particularly for carepartners. Additionally, little knowledge exists in the literature regarding understanding of and communication about off periods between patients or carepartners and treating physicians. Further research is required to explore these issues to ultimately improve the treatment of off periods.
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 | 0.013 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".