Clinical characteristics and reaction to dopaminergic treatment of drug-naïve patients with Parkinson's disease in central China: A cross sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The symptoms of early Parkinson's disease (PD) are complex and hidden. The aim of this study is to explore and summarize the characteristics of the symptoms of drug naïve patients with PD. Objectives: and Methods Drug-naïve patients with PD and age-matched healthy controls were recruited from the outpatient clinic of Wuhan Union Hospital. The motor and non-motor symptoms were evaluated for further analysis using Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) I, II, and III; Sniffin' Sticks Screening 12 test; Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE); Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA); Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA); and Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) scores. The acute levodopa challenge test (ALCT) was adopted to assess the reaction to dopaminergic treatment. Results: We recruited 80 drug-naïve patients with PD and 40 age-matched healthy controls (HCs). Approximately 53.7% of the patients were females. The mean onset age was 59.96 ± 10.40 years. The mean UPDRS I, II, and III were 2.01 ± 1.90, 6.18 ± 3.68, and 26.13 ± 12.09, respectively. Compared with HCs, PD patients had lower scores in MMSE and MoCA; and higher scores in HAMA and HAMD (p < 0.05). In ALCT, 54 patients showed good responses to levodopa while 26 patients did not. The mean improvement rate of UPDRS III was 34.09% at 120 min. Conclusion: The motor symptoms of patients with early PD were mild but virous. They also suffered from different non-motor symptoms. In ALCT, about two thirds of patients (54/80) with early PD showed good response to levodopa. Among four aspects of motor symptoms, bradykinesia reacted best to ALCT, while axial symptoms were the worst.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".