Evaluation of peripheral and autonomic nervous systems dysfunctions in patients with Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Peripheral neuropathy (PN) is increasingly recognized in Parkinson’s disease (PD). This study aimed to evaluate peripheral nerve and autonomic nervous system dysfunction in PD. Forty patients with PD (20 drug-naïve, 20 on treatment) and 20 controls underwent neurological examination, Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score (TCNS), nerve conduction studies, autonomic function tests including (heart rate variability, Blood pressure changes with standing and sustained handgrip, and sudomotor pathways. The Ewing classification system scored each test to quantify autonomic failure severity). Laboratory tests (B12, homocysteine, methylmalonic acid). Results Treated patients with PD had higher MDS-UPDRS scores than drug-naïve (p = 0.001). TCNS indicated mild PN in some drug-naïve patients, and mild–moderate PN in treated patients. Nerve conduction studies showed significant sensory and motor neuropathy in treated versus drug-naïve PD and controls. Treated patients had lower B12, higher homocysteine/methylmalonic acid than other groups. Across autonomic tests, controls had the most normal results, followed by drug-naïve patients, with treated patients being most abnormal. Autonomic dysfunction correlated with disease duration, severity, L-dopa dose. Lower B12, higher homocysteine/methylmalonic acid levels were associated with greater neuropathy and disease severity. Conclusion Patients with PD show evidence of PN and autonomic dysfunction, which is milder in drug-naïve patients but worsens with disease progression and treatment. Peripheral nervous system assessments may help diagnose and monitor PD neuropathy and effects of interventions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".