Practices and perceptions around splitting of carbidopa/levodopa tablets: a survey of patients and neurologists
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Carbidopa/levodopa (CD/LD) remains the primary treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD) motor control symptoms. With progressing disease, for better symptom management, patients often split immediate-release CD/LD tablets-research on this practice is limited. OBJECTIVE: Survey patients with PD/caregivers, and neurologists on CD/LD pill-splitting practices and motor complications' impact on quality of life (QoL). METHODS: We surveyed 101 patients/caregivers and 120 neurologists. RESULTS: All agreed that motor control symptoms substantially affect QoL, particularly as PD progresses. 47% of patients surveyed halved immediate-release CD/LD tablets, and 27% fragmenting them further, with 27% and 18% finding it easy and accurate, respectively. Pill splitters reported longer disease duration, more advanced PD, worse motor fluctuations/dyskinesia control, and QoL. Neurologists reported dissatisfaction with CD/LD treatments for advanced disease, noting 44.9% of patients split tablets with, and 21.9% without, physician recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Pill splitting is common but burdensome and imprecise. Further research is needed to evaluate clinical impact.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it