Probiotic Supplements For Depression In Parkinson’s Disease (Pro-Park): A Randomized, Triple-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase Iib Trial Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Parkinson’s disease (PD) is the second most prevalent degenerative neurological disorder globally. Comorbid major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common occurrence which adds considerably to disease burden. This protocol presents a study designed to investigate the effect of add on probiotic supplementation on MDD in patients with PD. Methods: We designed a phase IIb, randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of probiotics as an adjuvant treatment to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) for patients with mild to moderate PD and MDD.Participants will be randomized to probiotics (n=62) or placebo (n=62) arms using a permuted block randomization approach. Co-primary outcomes include changes in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores and SSRI equivalent doses, which will be compared between groups using a bivariate joint model. Secondary outcomes will include changes in both Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) score and levodopa dose, which will be analyzed using t-tests or Mann-Whitney tests as appropriate. Concurrent validity between MADRS and BDI-II will be assessed using Pearson’s or Spearman’s correlation tests. Safety will be evaluated by comparing discontinuation rates and adverse events between groups using chi-square. Data will be analyzed using intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses, and missing data will be addressed using multiple imputation methods. Discussion: Probiotics represent a potential new approach to managing depression in patients with PD by targeting the gut-brain axis. The results will offer crucial information about the safety and efficacy of a low-cost and readily available supplement that may alleviate depression in this vulnerable population.
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.009 |
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".