Initiating dopamine agonists rather than levodopa in early Parkinson's disease does not delay the need for deep brain stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: While levodopa is the most effective symptomatic treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD), its use is associated with an increased risk of motor complications (MCs) in the first 5 years of treatment compared to dopamine agonist (DA) first therapy. It is not known whether this translates into true benefit later in the disease. We aimed to determine whether there is a difference in the time between initial levodopa versus DA treatment and the development of disabling MCs prompting deep brain stimulation (DBS) consideration. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with PD attending the DBS Clinic at Toronto Western Hospital, Canada between March 2004 and February 2022, who underwent globus pallidus interna (GPI) or subthalamic nucleus (STN) DBS in 2005 or later for disabling MCs. RESULTS: Of the 438 patients included in the study, 352 underwent STN DBS and 86 underwent GPi DBS. The median (range) disease duration was 9 (2-30) years. The majority of patients (n = 312) received levodopa first and 126 received a DA. There was no significant difference in disease duration or amantadine use between the two groups. The duration from the first treatment to assesment for DBS (levodopa: median 8 years, interquartile range [IQ] 4 years; DA: median 9, IQR 4 years) or DBS surgery (levodopa: median 10 years, IIQR 5 years; DA: median 10 years, IQR 5 years) did not differ. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the only study to date to evaluate the duration between levodopa/DA-first treatment and the development of MCs of sufficient severity to warrant consideration of DBS. No association was found. The results suggest that the development of disabling MCs warranting DBS is independent of the type of first dopaminergic 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".