Abstract P381: Understanding the Symptoms of Neurogenic Orthostatic Hypotension: Results From a Survey of Patients and Caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To understand the burden and impact of symptoms of neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (nOH) on patients Background: nOH and its symptoms such as dizziness/lightheadedness are common in patients with Parkinson disease (PD) and other forms of autonomic dysfunction. Methods: An author-designed, US-based survey was conducted by Harris Poll. Eligible participants were aged ≥18 years with PD, multiple system atrophy (MSA), or pure autonomic failure and ≥1 of the following: orthostatic hypotension, nOH, low BP, OH/nOH symptoms, or were caregivers of eligible patients. Results: Most patients (90%) had a diagnosis of PD, and most caregivers (88%) cared for a patient with PD (Table 1) . Patients (34%) and caregivers (49%) reported experiencing nOH symptoms before PD or MSA motor symptoms and >40% indicated that nOH symptoms were more troublesome than motor manifestations of PD or MSA. Less than a quarter (22%) of respondents suggested symptoms were most severe in the morning; more (30%) reported a consistent severity throughout the day. Patients (40%) and caregivers (63%) reported trouble managing symptoms during the day. In the past 12 months, a fall due to nOH symptoms was reported by 57% of patients and 80% of caregivers. Conclusions: These findings suggest that nOH symptoms may predate the onset of motor symptoms in neurodegenerative conditions linked to alpha-synuclein pathology. Many respondents report nOH symptoms are the same severity through the day. Patients with nOH may have trouble managing symptoms and note an increased risk for falls.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".