The on-going quest for a long-acting oral form of levodopa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Levodopa is the gold standard symptomatic treatment for Parkinson's Disease (PD). However, its oral formulations lead to fluctuating plasma concentrations with delayed absorption in the stomach and low distribution in the brain due to its metabolism. AREAS COVERED: In this article, we first discuss the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of levodopa, exposing the problematics of the current levodopa formulations. We then discuss the more recent oral formulations designed to relieve these setbacks, including the development of controlled- and extended-release formulations. Finally, we expose the different alternative routes of administration that can be used, specifically in the case of patients with advanced PD. EXPERT OPINION: With the progression of PD from early to advanced stages, levodopa doses must often be increased with concentrations that remain unstable, leading to sub-optimal symptomatic control and motor complications. Remedying this requires a shift in treatments from the classic oral formulations to more long-acting oral formulations or the use of different administration routes. Among these new administration routes, inhaled levodopa and continuous subcutaneous foslevodopa/foscarbidopa stand out as the most studied and less invasive options. However, with adverse effects associated with each solution, it is important to find approaches that are adapted to each patient.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".