Parkinson’s Disease and the Cardiac Cycle: A Rapid Literature Review and Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cardiac function in patients with Parkinson's Disease (PD) is not well understood. We conducted a review of the literature to summarize all available data on the cardiac cycle in patients with PD and followed up the review with a case series to describe the cardiac cycle timing intervals in this patient population. METHODS: Using the search terms ("Cardiac cycle" OR "echocardiography" OR "LVET" OR "IVCT" OR "IVRT" OR "LVEF" OR "Systolic Dysfunction" OR "Diastolic Dysfunction") AND ("Parkinson's Disease"), 514 studies were found with 19 included in the review. RESULTS: Studies focused on the impact of medication, the presence of autonomic dysfunction, and resting-state, descriptive observational studies which considered the cardiac cycle. While inconsistent, the evidence suggests that patients with PD have some systolic dysfunction, with recent research implying the presence of subclinical systolic dysfunction. From the case series, 13 participants with PD were included and collected cardiac data daily for 6 weeks. Heart rate was consistent on a weekly basis at 67-71 bpm. Mean week-by-week cardiac parameters were also consistent with the systolic time interval at 332-348 ms, isovolumic relaxation time at 92-96 ms, and isovolumic contraction time at 34-36 ms. CONCLUSION: These timing intervals add valuable normative values for this patient population and the review of the literature suggests that more research is required to better understand cardiac cycle timing intervals in patients with Parkinson's Disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".