Examination of orthostatic hypotension and its related risk factors in patients with Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the incidence and risk factors of orthostatic hypotension (OH) in Parkinson's disease (PD) by Active Standing Test (AST) and Head⁃Up Tilt Test (HUTT). Methods A total of 54 patients with PD were admitted to The First Hospital of Hebei Medical University from February to September 2020. Blood pressure was measured by AST and HUTT, the incidence of OH detected by the two methods was compared. Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini⁃Mental State Examination (MMSE) were used to assess the cognitive function. Hamilton Depression Rating Scale⁃24 (HAMD⁃24) was used to evaluate depressive symptoms. Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale⁃14 (HAMA⁃14) was used to evaluate anxiety symptoms. Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) was used to evaluate the sleep quality. Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) and its third part were used to assess motor and non⁃motor symptoms of PD. Modified Hoehn⁃Yahr staging was assessed for disease severity. Functional gastroenteropathy Rome Ⅲ diagnostic criteria to assess constipation. KINPAMOR was used to assess olfactory function. Univariate and multivariate forward Logistic regression analyses were used to analyze the risk factors for OH in PD. Results The incidence of OH detected by HUTT was higher than that detected by AST [62.96% (34/54) vs. 24.07% (13/54); χ2=19.048, P=0.000]. Logistic regression analysis showed that the levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) of dopamine receptor agonists increased (OR=1.029, 95%CI: 1.007-1.051; P=0.010), constipation (OR=16.268, 95%CI: 1.213-227.972; P=0.035), the lower MMSE score (OR=0.606, 95%CI: 0.418-0.880; P=0.008), the higher UPDRS total scores (OR=1.303, 95%CI: 1.034-1.643; P=0.025) and the higher UPDRSⅢ score (OR=1.438, 95%CI: 1.041-1.986; P=0.027) were risk factors for OH in PD. Conclusions The incidence of OH detected by HUTT was significantly higher than that detected by AST in PD patients. The higher dosage of dopamine receptor agonist LEDD, constipation, the higher total UPDRS score, the higher UPDRSⅢ score and the lower MMSE score were risk factors for the development of OH in PD patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".