Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Punding is a stereotyped behavior characterized by an intense fascination with a complex, excessive, non-goal oriented, repetitive activity affecting individuals with Parkinson's disease (PD) on dopamine replacement therapy (DRT). Objectives: In 2010, we published the first review focused on the pathophysiology of punding. This study aims to systematically review the literature of the past decade on punding in PD, particularly focusing on the clinical features, underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, and treatment. Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we searched PubMed, Embase, and APA PsycInfo for articles published between July 1, 2010 and March 19, 2022. The search strategy included: (punding) AND (parkinson*). Results: Of 256 studies identified, 29 were eligible for inclusion with 19 original research articles and 10 case reports. This review confirmed that predictors of punding in PD are higher doses of DRT, younger age, male sex, and increasing disease severity. We also found an association between punding and psychiatric and/or cognitive symptoms. Neuroimaging studies have showed that punding in PD is associated with a disconnection between midbrain, limbic and white matter tracts projecting to the frontal cortices and a breakdown of the connectivity among the crucial nodes of the reward circuit. Low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex has been shown to produce a transient beneficial effect in PD patients with punding. Conclusion: In conclusion, although the clinical features of punding have been established, in the past 12 years, we gained a better understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms of punding, mainly thanks to magnetic resonance imaging techniques.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".