MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967195953 · doi:10.1016/j.prdoa.2019.07.008

The experience of off periods: Qualitative analysis of interviews with persons with Parkinson's and carepartners

2019· article· en· W2967195953 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa J. Armstrong, Tara Rastgardani, Anna R. Gagliardi, Connie Marras

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Parkinsonism & Related Disorders · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkToronto Western Hospital
FundersMichael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research
KeywordsParkinson's diseasePsychologyQualitative researchGerontologySociologyMedicineSocial scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: period experiences by interviewing persons with Parkinson's disease (PwP) and carepartners. METHODS: period experiences. Investigators analyzed interview transcripts using a qualitative descriptive approach to identify and compare themes between groups. RESULTS: questionnaires recommended by the International Parkinson and Movement Disorders Society. PwP and carepartners identified 15 non-motor symptoms, 8 of which (behavior changes, irritability, fatigue, language difficulties, dizziness, dry mouth, urinary symptoms, and swollen feet) were not in recommended questionnaires. Certain symptoms were reported only by PwP (e.g. dizziness, urinary symptoms) or carepartners (e.g. behavioral changes), or were reported by dyad members to different degrees (e.g. fatigue, anxiety). CONCLUSION: experiences, clinicians likely need to use multiple approaches to gathering information including questionnaires and both PwP and carepartner report.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.802

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Parkinsonism & Related DisordersSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207