MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019771001 · doi:10.1017/s1092852920000255

107 Examining Real World Treatment Pathways in Parkinson Disease Psychosis: Initial Findings from the INSYTE Observational Study

2020· article· en· W3019771001 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer G. Goldman, Susan H. Fox, Bruce Coate, Jesse LoVerme, Niccole J. Larsen, Jeff Trotter, Andrew Shim

Bibliographic record

VenueCNS Spectrums · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersACADIA Pharmaceuticals
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyDiseaseQuality of life (healthcare)AntipsychoticInternal medicinePsychosisParkinson's diseaseSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Study Objectives: The INSYTE study provides an understanding of the management of Parkinson disease psychosis (PDP) in actual practice settings, including use of antipsychotic (APs) and their impact on clinical, economic, and humanistic outcomes. Treatment paradigms or the benefits/consequences of various “real world” PDP treatment strategies have not been evaluated. Thus, providers may be using a wide range of AP treatment strategies that contrast with consensus recommendations. Method: The INSYTE study is enrolling up to 750 patients from up to 100 sites in the US. Data are compiled at the baseline (BL) visit and from standard-of-care follow up visits over 3 years. PDP treatment pathways are defined from 3 BL cohorts reflecting (1) no AP medication, (2) use of pimavanserin (PIM), or (3) other AP treatment. Information about APs used is collected at each follow-up visit: history, duration, dose, adjustment, and rationale for adjustment of treatment. Outcomes assessments (clinical, quality of life, disease burden) by the physician, patient, and caregiver are also collected. AP medication and outcomes data are analyzed for patients completing a BL and 1 follow up visit (FU1). Results: For 404 patients with BL and FU1 visits (mean 120.7 days from BL), 56.8% used no AP medications, 26.0% used PIM, and 13.6% used other APs at BL. The No Medication group was noted to be less severe in key BL disease parameters. Considering primary PDP treatments at BL and FU1 (including no treatment), 26 distinct pathways were being employed. 12.6% of patients had AP medication adjustments between BL and FU1 visits, most frequently from the non-PIM group. Adjustments of APs occurred in many forms: introduction of a single AP (64.7%%), introduction of multiple APs (5.9%), switching to another AP (3.9%), decreasing the number of APs (5.9%), and discontinuation (19.6%). Conclusions: Multiple, divergent AP treatment strategies for PDP exist in actual practice. No identifiable BL characteristics correlated with the broad range of AP treatment pathways. The numerous distinct AP treatment pathways utilized (n=26) reflect discordance with the updated 2019 MDS evidence-based recommendations, which recognize only 2 APs as “efficacious” and “clinically useful”: pimavanserin and clozapine. Education of healthcare professionals remains a priority for PDP management. Funding Acknowledgements: ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc.

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)0.000
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.253
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.114 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCNS SpectrumsSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207