Abstract P382: Management and Treatment of Neurogenic Orthostatic Hypotension: Results From a Survey of Patients and Caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To understand the patient and caregiver experience with the management of neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (nOH) Background: nOH is a sustained reduction in blood pressure (BP) with postural change associated with autonomic dysfunction. Clinical symptoms may include falls, leading to activity limits and a diminished sense of well-being. Methods: A US-based survey designed by the authors was conducted by Harris Poll. Eligible participants had Parkinson disease (PD), multiple system atrophy, or pure autonomic failure and ≥1 of the following: orthostatic hypotension (OH), nOH, low BP, OH/nOH symptoms, or were caregivers of eligible patients. Descriptive statistics are reported. Results: PD was the most frequent underlying diagnosis (Table 1) . Healthcare provider (HCP) communication with patients was rated as satisfactory by ≥75% of respondents, yet when nOH symptoms were first discussed with the HCP, only 35% of patients and 31% of caregivers reported the patient received guidance on management. The most frequently recommended interventions are listed in Table 1 ; 25% of patients reported that no interventions were recommended. Medication prescribed to treat nOH was reported by 34% of patients and 45% of caregivers. Among patients treated, 79% of patients and 71% of caregivers said that the patient’s symptoms were somewhat to very well managed. Conclusions: Survey findings suggest the need for increased awareness of nOH and engagement with patients and caregivers regarding symptom management. A variety of interventions were recommended; no single treatment approach was noted. Respondents felt nOH symptoms were at least somewhat well managed with treatment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".