Follow-Up of Advanced Parkinson’s Disease Patients after Clinical or Surgical Emergencies: A Practical Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Patients with advanced stage Parkinson’s disease (PD) typically present with a myriad of motor and nonmotor symptoms in addition to comorbidities and, as a consequence, polypharmacy. Objective. To analyze a series of cases of advanced PD in which a clinical or surgical emergency played a trigger role in the irreversible progression of landmarks of the course of the disease. Methods. Data were collected during a 13-month observational period of a cohort of 230 PD patients, in 751 medical appointments. We included a total of 13 (5.65% of the total number) patients with advanced PD defined by Hoehn & Yahr (H&Y) stage ≥3 who presented with various clinical and surgical complications which, with the contribution of drug interventions, led to significant worsening of patients’ overall clinical condition. Results. Hip fractures and infections were the most common complications identified. As part of this scenario, most patients presented with delirium, often requiring treatment with dopamine receptor blocking agents and/or had dopaminergic treatment withdrawn. Upon reassessment after 3 months, all patients remained bed or wheel chair bound (H&Y 5) and presented significant worsening of their UPDRS part III score of at least 10 points (mean 51.5 ± 3.3; paired t-test two-tailed p < 0.0001 compared to baseline). The mean dose of levodopa at baseline was 907.7 ± 149.8 mg (600–1200) and significantly higher (paired t-test two-tailed p < 0.0001 ) on follow-up, 1061.5 ± 175.8 mg (700–1300). Conclusion. Clinical and surgical emergencies are major determinants for a progression of PD to more advanced stages.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".