Efficacy and Feasibility of the CO-OP Approach in Parkinson's Disease: RCT Study Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Parkinson's disease (PD) leads to cognitive dysfunction which limits participation and occupational performance. Cognitive Orientation to Daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) approach is effective in other adult neurological populations and warrants investigation in PD. Purpose. To describe a study protocol evaluating the preliminary efficacy and feasibility of CO-OP approach in PD. Method. A randomised controlled trial (RCT) with adults with PD was assigned to either: CO-OP training-intensive (CO-OP-I, 20 sessions) or waitlist control (WLC) followed by CO-OP-standard (CO-OP-S, 10 sessions). Outcomes. Occupational performance and satisfaction of adults with PD in chosen goals. Measures will be obtained at baseline, post-intervention, and 3-month follow-up. Implications. As the first RCT focused on CO-OP in PD, this trial will provide evidence for the potential of this approach in PD and lay the groundwork for future large-scale trials. Trial Registration. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials registry, ACTRN12621001483842. Registered November 1, 2021; retrospectively registered 3 months after commencement.
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 | 0.060 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.009 |
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".