Randomized controlled trial of intermittent hypoxia in Parkinson’s disease: study rationale and protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disease for which no disease-modifying therapies exist. Preclinical and clinical evidence suggest that repeated exposure to intermittent hypoxia might have short- and long-term benefits in PD. In a previous exploratory phase I trial, we demonstrated that in-clinic intermittent hypoxia exposure is safe and feasible with short-term symptomatic effects on PD symptoms. The current study aims to explore the safety, tolerability, feasibility, and net symptomatic effects of a four-week intermittent hypoxia protocol, administered at home, in individuals with PD. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a two-armed double-blinded randomized controlled trial involving 40 individuals with mild to moderate PD. Participants will receive 45 min of normobaric intermittent hypoxia (fraction of inspired oxygen 0.16 for 5 min interspersed with 5 min normoxia), 3 times a week for 4 weeks. Co-primary endpoints include nature and total number of adverse events, and a feasibility-tolerability questionnaire. Secondary endpoints include Movement Disorders Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) part II and III scores, gait tests and biomarkers indicative of hypoxic dose and neuroprotective pathway induction. DISCUSSION: This trial builds on the previous phase I trial and aims to investigate the safety, tolerability, feasibility, and net symptomatic effects of intermittent hypoxia in individuals with PD. Additionally, the study aims to explore induction of relevant neuroprotective pathways as measured in plasma. The results of this trial could provide further insight into the potential of hypoxia-based therapy as a novel treatment approach for PD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05948761 (registered June 20th, 2023).
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 | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.005 |
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".