Natural Health Products for Symptomatic Relief of Parkinson’s Disease: Prevalence, Interest, and Awareness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Natural health products have emerged as a potential symptomatic therapeutic approach for people with Parkinson's disease (PD). Objective: To determine the prevalence of natural health product use, interest in natural health products, awareness of potential herb-drug interactions, and consultation of healthcare professionals regarding natural health products use among people with PD. Methods: Cross-sectional 4-item survey embedded in the PRIME-NL study, which is a population-based cohort of PD. Results: Of 367 people with PD, 36% reported having used natural health products to alleviate PD-related symptoms, with coffee, cannabis and turmeric being the most popular. Furthermore, 71% of people with PD were interested in learning more about natural health products. 39% of natural health products users were aware that these products could interact with PD medication and 39% had discussed their use with their healthcare professional. Conclusions: Natural health products are commonly used to alleviate symptoms by people with PD, but most users are unaware that these products can interact with PD medication and do not discuss their consumption with their healthcare professional.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".