Orthostatic Hypotension Is a Predictor of Fatigue in Drug-Naïve Parkinson’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Fatigue and orthostatic hypotension (OH) are common and disabling nonmotor symptoms (NMSs) of Parkinson's disease (PD), but none of the studies have reported on the longitudinal association between fatigue and OH. Methods: Drug-naïve PD patients were recruited from a hospital-based cohort and evaluated with the Parkinson Fatigue Scale (PFS), head-up tilt test, Unified PD Rating Scale, Hoehn and Yahr stage, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Scale for Outcomes in PD-Autonomic (SCOPA-AUT), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Beck Anxiety Inventory, PD Sleep Scale, and medications at the baseline and follow-up visits. Results: A total of 80 patients were included, and the mean ages were 66.6 and 63.8 years in the fatigue and nonfatigue groups, respectively. The prevalence of fatigue was 17.5% (14/80) at the baseline and follow-up (mean follow-up: 23.3 ± 9.9 months). The prevalence of OH in the fatigue group was 57.1%, and it was significantly higher than that of the nonfatigue group. Six of the 14 patients (42.9%) in the fatigue group had persistent fatigue at the follow-up, and eight of them (57.1%) converted to the nonfatigue group. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the changes of BDI and the presence of OH at the baseline were the predictors for fatigue in drug-naïve PD. Conclusion: Fatigue is a common NMS in PD but can vary depending on the disease course. OH and depression are the most relevant predictors for the development of fatigue in drug-naïve PD. The present study suggests that the management of autonomic symptoms and depression might be helpful for managing fatigue in 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 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".