Oral Levodopa Formulation Does Not Affect Progression of Parkinson Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Motor fluctuations develop in most patients treated with carbidopa/levodopa for Parkinson disease. The continuous dopamine stimulation hypothesis suggests that longer-acting forms of levodopa might improve outcomes, but this has been inadequately tested in humans. We undertook to determine if there is any difference in symptom progression rate among patients taking immediate-release carbidopa/levodopa (IR), controlled-release carbidopa/levodopa (CR), or carbidopa/levodopa/entacapone (CLE) using standard outcome measures in a naturalistic study. METHODS: We evaluated Parkinson disease subjects prospectively followed for up to 48 months in the Parkinson's Disease Biomarker Project. Bayesian linear or generalized linear mixed-effects models were developed to determine if oral levodopa formulation influenced the rate of symptom progression as measured by 8 outcome measures. RESULTS: At baseline, the IR, CR, and CLE groups were similar except that the CR group had milder disease and was represented at only 1 site, and the CLE group had a longer disease duration. In the primary analysis, there was no difference in rate of symptom progression as measured by the Movement Disorder Society-Sponsored Revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part II, Part IV, or total score. In the secondary exploratory analysis, there was no difference in progression rate as measured by change in levodopa equivalent daily dose, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire mobility subscore, Schwab and England Activities of Daily Living Scale, or a global composite outcome. CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in symptom progression rate in patients taking IR, CR, or CLE. This clinical observation supports pharmacokinetic studies demonstrating that none of these oral levodopa formulations achieve continuous dopamine stimulation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".