Is Levodopa Response a Valid Indicator of Parkinson's Disease?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical diagnosis of Parkinson's disease (PD) requires the presence of parkinsonism and supportive criteria that include a clear and dramatic beneficial response to dopaminergic therapy. Our aim was to test the diagnostic criterion of dopaminergic response by evaluating its association with pathologically confirmed diagnoses in a large population of parkinsonian patients. METHODS: We reviewed clinical data maintained in an electronic medical record from all patients with autopsy data who had been seen in the Movement Disorders Center at Washington University, St. Louis, between 1996 and 2018. All patients with parkinsonism who underwent postmortem neuropathologic examination were included in this analysis. RESULTS: There were 257 unique parkinsonian patients with autopsy-based diagnoses who had received dopaminergic therapy. Marked or moderate response to dopaminergic therapy occurred in 91.2% (166/182) of those with autopsy-confirmed PD, 52.0% (13/25) of those with autopsy-confirmed multiple systems atrophy, 44.4% (8/18) of those with autopsy-confirmed progressive supranuclear palsy, and 1 (1/8) with autopsy-confirmed corticobasal degeneration. Other diagnoses were responsible for the remaining 24 individuals, 9 of whom had a moderate response to dopaminergic therapy. CONCLUSION: A substantial response to dopaminergic therapy is frequent but not universal in PD. An absent response does not exclude PD. In other neurodegenerative disorders associated with parkinsonism, a prominent response may also be evident, but this occurs less frequently than in PD. © 2020 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".