Managing Constipation and Its Risks in Parkinson’s Disease: Is There a Role for Dietary Fiber?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A common consequence of Parkinson's disease (PD) is constipation. Beyond its deleterious effect on the quality of life in affected persons, constipation is associated with gut microbiota dysbiosis and microbial-generated inflammatory metabolites, which may further disease progression. Management strategies are needed, and diet, specifically higher fiber dietary patterns or fiber supplements, may be recommended. However, therapeutic effectiveness and potential health benefits have been underexplored, and risks may be unappreciated. This perspective addresses whether high-fiber diets and fiber supplements to support laxation are efficacious, safe, and generally feasible for people with PD. Diverse sources of fiber from plant-based dietary patterns may be particularly critical for balancing microbiota and the microbial production of beneficial vs. inflammatory metabolites, although adherence to such dietary patterns may be challenging. Supplemental fiber may be needed to manage constipation symptoms. However, the potential safety issues related to fiber supplementation, such as appetite suppression, unintentional weight loss, and risk of malnutrition in the context of neurodegeneration, must also be considered. Slow colonic transit time and defecatory disorders of PD may be best managed with high intakes of bran or hull fibers resistant to microbial fermentation, which will significantly increase stool bulking. However, clinical trials are needed to confirm efficacy and dose-response.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".