MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283824355 · doi:10.1097/wco.0000000000001075

Movement disorders in COVID-19 times: impact on care in movement disorders and Parkinson disease

2022· review· en· W4283824355 on OpenAlexaff
Sabrina Poonja, К. Ray Chaudhuri, Janis M. Miyasaki

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Neurology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicTelemedicineSocial isolationIsolation (microbiology)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)TelehealthDiseaseMedicineMovement disordersHealth carePolitical sciencePsychiatryInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to outline the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on movement disorder holistic care, particularly in the care of people with Parkinson disease (PWP). RECENT FINDINGS: As the pandemic unfolds, a flurry of literature was published regarding the impact of COVID-19 on people with Parkinson disease including the direct impact of infection, availability of ambulatory care, loss of community-based team care, and acceptability of telemedicine. SUMMARY: COVID-19 has impacted the care of PWP in numerous ways. Recognizing infection in PWP poses challenges. Specific long-term complications, including emerging reports of long COVID syndrome is a growing concern. Caregivers and PWP have also been impacted by COVID-19 social isolation restrictions, with radical changes to the structure of social networks and support systems globally. In a matter of weeks, the global community saw an incredible uptake in telemedicine, which brought benefits and pitfalls. As PWP adapted to virtual platforms and the changing architecture of care delivery, the pandemic amplified many preexisting inequities amongst populations and countries, exposing a new 'digital divide'.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in NeurologySame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207