A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Pramipexole with Levodopa in Early Parkinson's Disease: Design and Methods of the CALM-PD Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CALM-PD (Comparison of the agonist pramipexole with levodopa on motor complications of Parkinson's disease) is a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, controlled clinical trial designed to compare the policy of initial treatment of pramipexole with the policy of initial treatment with levodopa in early, symptomatic Parkinson's disease with regard to the development of dopaminergic motor complications. At 22 American and Canadian sites, 301 eligible subjects requiring antiparkinsonian therapy to treat emerging disability were enrolled in CALM-PD and randomized to (i) active pramipexole and placebo levodopa or (ii) placebo pramipexole and active levodopa. Subjects are being evaluated systematically at regular intervals during a 23.5-month period to determine if and when dopaminergic motor complications (wearing off, dyskinesias, "on-off" effects) occur. In addition, quality-of-life outcomes, economic outcomes, and functional imaging outcomes are being assessed in standard fashion with [123I] beta-CIT and SPECT imaging throughout the trial. The study design contains many provisions to approximate routine clinical practice and to produce data about clinical effectiveness, tolerability, and cost to facilitate the evidence-based practice of neurology.
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 | 0.023 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".