Effect of antiparkinsonian medication on spatiotemporal gait parameters of individuals with Parkinson’s disease: comparison between individuals with and without freezing of gait
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The gait of individuals with Parkinson’s disease (PD) tends to be slower, characterized by narrow and short steps. During the medication, the self-selected gait speed of individuals with PD increases. However, when looking individually at the spatiotemporal parameters of gait, the medication induces different and not always consistent effects. However, the effects of medication and freezing of gait during walking in individuals with PD are unknown. AIM: To analyze the effect of antiparkinsonian medication and freezing of gait (FoG) on spatiotemporal gait parameters in individuals with PD. METHOD: For this purpose, we compared gait parameters in individuals with FoG (freezers, n=11) and without FoG (non-freezers, n=11). Spatiotemporal gait parameters (speed, cadence, step length, step time, step width, stride length, stride time, swing phase, and double support) and clinical scales (parts II and III of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale, Hoehn and Yahr, Montreal Cognitive Assessment questionnaire and Mini-Test scale of Balance Assessment System) were analyzed in two experimental sessions, counterbalanced between individuals: one in the ON medication state (1h after ingestion), and another in the OFF medication state (~12h after the last ingestion). Linear mixed effects models 2-groups X 2-conditions were used. RESULTS: We found that gait speed, stride, and step length were significantly higher in the ON than in the OFF condition for both freezers and non-freezers, and significantly lower in the freezers than in the non-freezers, regardless of the medication state. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that medication improved gait performance equivalently in both freezers and non-freezers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".