Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide family physicians an updated approach to the diagnosis of Parkinson disease (PD). SOURCES OF INFORMATION: Published guidelines on the diagnosis and management of PD were reviewed. Database searches were conducted to retrieve relevant research articles published between 2011 and 2021. Evidence levels ranged from I to III. MAIN MESSAGE: Diagnosis of PD is predominantly clinical. Family physicians should evaluate patients for specific features of parkinsonism, then determine whether symptoms are attributable to PD. Levodopa trials can be used to help confirm the diagnosis and alleviate motor symptoms of PD. "Red flag" features and absence of response to levodopa may point to other causes of parkinsonism and prompt more urgent referral. CONCLUSION: Access to neurologists and specialized clinics varies, and Canadian family physicians can be important players in facilitating early and accurate diagnosis of PD. Applying an organized approach to diagnosis and considering motor and nonmotor symptoms can greatly benefit patients with PD. Part 2 in this series will review management of 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
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 teacher head, 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".