MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310699134 · doi:10.1159/000527513

Constipation in Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022· review· en· W4310699134 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Neurology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisObservational studyOdds ratioInternal medicineConstipationConfidence intervalMEDLINESubgroup analysisCohort studyCochrane LibrarySystematic reviewEpidemiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Constipation is a common nonmotor symptom of Parkinson's disease (PD) and has been reported to increase the risk of developing PD. However, previous studies have yielded conflicting results. Understanding this correlation may promote early diagnosis and treatment of PD, which could help patients improve their quality of life. This study aimed to investigate the association between constipation and PD onset. METHODS: The study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. We searched the Medline, Embase, Scopus, SINOMED, and Cochrane databases as well as specific journals from inception to September 2021 for observational studies that evaluated the association between constipation and the risk of PD. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. Associations were summarized as odds ratios (ORs) using a random-effects model. Subgroup, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Seventeen studies comprising 3,024,193 participants (case-control = 1,636,831; cohort = 1,387,362) were eligible for inclusion. The pooled OR for the association between constipation and PD was 2.36 (95% confidence interval: 1.93-2.88), although strong heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 90%, p < 0.01). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses indicated that study design and disease duration were the major sources of heterogeneity. A sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of the outcomes. In addition, the prevalence of among those with prodromal PD was 20%, whereas it was only 11% in the control group (p < 0.01). Moreover, there were no significant age-based differences in constipation between the prodromal stage of PD patients and the controls (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Constipation has a relatively high incidence in the prodromal phase of PD and is associated with an increased risk of developing PD.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.238 · 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