Prevalence of Late-Stage Parkinson’s Disease in the US Health Care System: Insights from TriNetX
==================================================================================================

* Sol De Jesus
* Annika Daya
* Liba Blumberger
* Mechelle M. Lewis
* Doug Leslie
* Samer D. Tabbal
* Rachel Dokholyan
* Amanda M. Snyder
* Richard B. Mailman
* Xuemei Huang

## Abstract

**Background** Patients in late-stage Parkinson’s disease (PDLS) are caregiver dependent, have low quality of life, and higher health care costs.

**Objective** To estimate the prevalence of PDLS patients in the current United States (US) health care system.

**Methods** We downloaded the 2010-2022 data from the TriNetX Diamond claims network that consists of 92 USA health care sites. PD was identified using standard diagnosis codes, and PDLS was identified by the usage of wheelchair dependence, personal care assistance and/or presence of diagnoses of dementia. Age of PDLS identification, and survival information are obtained and stratified by demographic and the disability subgroups.

**Results** We identified 1,031,377 PD patients in the TriNetX database. Of these, 18.8% fit our definition of PDLS (n=194,297), and 10.2% met two or more late-stage criteria. Among all PDLS, the mean age of PDLS identification was 78.1 (±7.7), and 49% were already reported as deceased. PDLS patients were predominantly male (58.5%), with similar distribution across PDLS subgroups. The majority did not have race (71%) or ethnicity (69%) information, but for the available information, >90% (n=53,162) were white, 8.2% (n=5,121) Hispanic/Latino, 7.8% (n=4,557) black, and <0.01% (n=408) Asian. Of the PDLS cohort, 71.6% identified with dementia, 12.9% had personal care assistance, and 4.8% were wheelchair bound.

**Conclusions** Late-stage patients are a significant part of PD landscape in the current US healthcare system, and largely missed by traditional motor-based disability staging. It is imperative to include this population as a clinical, social, and research priority.

Key words
*   Parkinson’s disease
*   late-stage Parkinson’s disease
*   health care burden
*   palliative care

## Introduction

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is characterized clinically by motor dysfunction that includes bradykinesia, tremor, and rigidity. The 20th century witnessed tremendous advances in understanding the role of nigrostriatal system in PD,1-4 as well as developing therapeutic strategies targeting at normalizing it.5-11 The first breakthrough was the availability of levodopa that effectively restored the lost dopaminergic tone.2 This led to a new era for PD patients with dramatically improved symptoms and lengthened lifespan.5-11 As of the first quarter of 21st century, PD patients remained largely independent in the first decade of their disease, especially when treated in PD subspecialty clinics and research centers.12

PD patients suffer from increasing motor (e.g., motor fluctuations, levodopa-induced dyskinesia, gait disorders, and falls)13 and non-motor (e.g., cognitive, mood, and autonomic) signs and symptoms.14,15 Together, this impacts overall independence and quality of life (QoL).14,15 It is estimated that PD affects at least six-million people worldwide,16 a number that may double globally by 2040.16 A recent GBA report suggested that the increasing PD prevalence has outpaced all other neurological disorders, akin to a pandemic.17 The increase has been attributed to several factors including an aging population, improved symptom detection, decline in smoking prevalence,18 and a variety of environmental perturbations,19-22 although much remains to be learned.17,18

PD is diagnosed based on clinical signs and symptoms. The relentless progression of PD has been tracked with Hoehn and Yahr (H&Y) staging that focuses on limited motor and postural instability milestones.5,23 With the widespread use of levodopa (the standard of care for more than 50 years) a robust clinical drug response became one of the criteria for consideration of clinical diagnosis of PD, with definitive diagnosis relying on the pathological presence of α-synuclein (αSyn)-positive Lewy bodies/neurites and dopamine neuron loss in the substantia nigra pars compacta (SNc) of the BG.3,4 Despite recent awareness of extra-nigrostriatal involvement and non-motor disabilities, PD staging has still largely focused on HY staging. This was the motivation for a recent Movement Disorders Society-sponsored meeting that addressed the many issues involved in developing a more precise PD staging system.24

Coelho and Ferreira15 more recently proposed a very useful operational definition to depict PD clinical progression. They labeled early-stage PD (PDES) as beginning with initial diagnosis that is marked by substantial motor improvement when patients take levodopa; this is often called the “honeymoon” period because most patients have excellent QoL. Patients then progress to advanced-stage PD (PDAS) that is marked by levodopa-related motor complications (e.g., motor fluctuations and drug-induced dyskinesia). For this stage of patients, deep-brain stimulation (DBS) attenuates symptoms and can improve QoL dramatically. Finally, they15 proposed an operational definition of late-stage PD based on a Schwab and England Scale.25 Patients enter late-stage PD (PDLS) marked by levodopa-unresponsive postural instability, dysphagia, prominent autonomic dysfunction and/or dementia, and the need for assistance in walking or even being bed-bound. This was related to Schwab and England25 scores of less than 50% during periods of adequate symptom control (“on” period), described a patient requiring help with half of their chores and experiencing difficulty with all activities, and a score of 40% reflected being highly dependent on caregiver support, able to assist with all chores, but being unable to complete most tasks alone.15 Others have felt this conceptualization was useful (e.g.,14,26,27).

The late stage of disease (i.e., PDLS) has received less attention in clinical research, partly due to the complexity of clinical symptoms and other obstacles such as limited ability to travel. Late-stage disability may emerge as early as 7-10 years after diagnosis,14,15,28,29 and leads to PDLS patients having increased cost and greater utilization of healthcare systems.30 Analysis of Medicare claims-based data has provided a picture of the financial impact of advanced/late PD (incurring greater mean costs) as compared to mild or moderate PD patients.31 In addition to falls and dementia, PDLS often is characterized by dependence on caregivers for activities of daily living. Wheelchair dependence and institutionalization are also common. These disability milestones have been suggested to precede death in PD patients by ∼5 years.15,32 The exact prevalence of patients in later stages is, however, unknown, thus hindering effective need assessments for clinical, research, and social planning.

Leveraging the available TriNetX Diamond Network data, we have estimated PDLS prevalence in the U.S health care system. We identified all PD patients, and from these data, determined those in late stages based on the disability milestones of wheelchair dependence, dementia, and/or personal care assistance. We then identified the characteristics of the PDLS patient population to analyze their profiles.

## Methods

We utilized the TriNetX Diamond Network, a de-identified clinical patient dataset from a network of healthcare organizations in the US.33 This database provides ambulatory and primary care electronic medical records, medical claims, and patient medication data from 92 healthcare organizations in the US and includes data for 212-million patients. According to the TriNetX website, the Diamond Network contains data covering 1.8 million providers and 99% of US health plans. The data covered a time window of January 1 2010 to the date of data extraction on February 24, 2023, and then identified and described individuals with PD.

A preliminary query was performed on the TriNetX website to look at the overall PD cohort using the ICD-10 and ICD-9 diagnostic codes entered in an electronic medical record (EMR) to specify PD in clinical practice (G20; 332.0). PDLS was defined as requiring a diagnosis of PD plus one or more of the following mentioned disability milestones. The presence of PDLS was identified via TriNetX query tool with the following combinations of ICD-10 and ICD-9 (Table 1) diagnostic codes: a diagnostic code for PD (G20; 332.0) in combination with a code for wheelchair dependence (Z99.3; V46.3), dementia (F02.80; F02.81; 294.11; 294.10), and/or personal care assistance (Z74.1; Z74.2; Z74.3; V60.89; V60.4). It is noted that the personal care assistance codes do not specify the degree of caregiver support but provides a good initial indicator of the need for personal care assistance. Because PD diagnosis before age 40 is rare (often with atypical features and progression), those individuals were excluded although this may have eliminated some patients with young onset PD. For transparency and better understanding of source data, we also captured all data, even if incomplete or with otherwise inaccurate data entry (Figure 1).

![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/07/03/2024.01.29.24301955/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/03/2024.01.29.24301955/F1)

Figure 1: PRISMA Flow Diagram of Cohort Exclusions, Data from the TriNetX database.
Data were downloaded and included information from patients with PDLS. Since this study focused on the late-stage characteristics of patients with Parkinson’s disease, we excluded patients without PDLS characteristics, those aged <40, and those where the reported date of death occurred prior to a documented encounter. Patients then were separated by the PDLS characteristics that included patients with wheelchair dependence, dementia, personal care assistance, or a combination of these (see Figure 2).

The resulting data library for PDLS patients was requested for the following additional analyses. First, individual PDLS subgroups, based on our querying criteria, were extracted without overlap (PD + one late-stage criterion). Second, we created combined PD subgroups to capture the presence of multiple late-stage criteria (multiple criteria groups) encompassing all possible combinations: (a) dementia and wheelchair; (b) wheelchair and personal care; (c) dementia and personal care; and (d) presence of all three criteria. These data are presented in a Venn Diagram (Figure 2). National Drug Codes (NDCs) were used to identify drug usage associated with Parkinson’s disease as levodopa-related, other dopaminergic, memory enhancing, and or antipsychotic medications (see Supplemental Data for details).

![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/07/03/2024.01.29.24301955/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/03/2024.01.29.24301955/F2)

Figure 2. Venn diagram describing overlap in diagnoses and late-stage disease criteria among the PDLS patients.
Patient numbers in each overlapped are inclusive only of those with the listed combination. That is, section A (12,474 patients in PDLS+Dementia vs. PDLS+Personal Care Assistance) does not include N= 1,041 who also have wheelchair dependence.

A non-parametric test, chi-square, was conducted to assess differences in observed frequencies across stratified groups. All analyses were conducted using SAS Version 9.4, and final data was drawn February 24, 2023. Penn State Institutional Review Board prior approval was unnecessary due to the de-identified nature of the database. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize sample characteristics with frequencies computed for demographic, prescription, and death data that were stratified by late-stage criteria (dementia, wheelchair dependence, personal care assistance, and their combinations). Binary variables were created to identify whether an individual was alive or deceased at the time of data retrieval. Age was calculated by subtracting a patient’s year of birth from their last service date documenting an interaction with the healthcare system partnering with TriNetX. All descriptive analyses were conducted using SAS Version 9.4, and final data was drawn February 24, 2023. Penn State Institutional Review Board prior approval was unnecessary due to the de-identified nature of the database.

## Results

### Identification of the PDLS cohort and disability distribution in TriNetX dataset

From the preliminary TriNetX data query, 1,031,377 patients between 2010 and 2022 had a diagnosis of PD. Within the overall PD group, 777,116 subjects did not have any PDLS features. After excluding 42,524 subjects who were < 40 yo, 211,737 PDLS patients > 40 yo remained. We also excluded another 17,440 patients: these include patients with an encounter day(s) documented after the reported date of death (N = 11,805); those with only a G20, but no other late-stage code (N = 5,487); and those who died before age 40 (N = 148). This gave a final dataset of 194,297 PDLS patients (Figure 1).

Of the total PDLS cohort, more than 70% (139,023) were assessed as having dementia, 9,301 subjects were identified as having wheelchair dependence, 139,023 subjects were identified with a diagnosis of dementia, and 25,145 subjects were specified utilization of personal care assistance (Figure 2). Among PDLS patients, 10.2% (n=19,787) had at least two of these other late-stage criteria (Figure 2). Within those with multiple diagnoses, 3.1% (n=5,995) had both the diagnosis of dementia and wheelchair dependence; 0.7% (n=1,318) were wheelchair dependence and required personal care assistance; 6.4% (n=12,474) had dementia and personal care assistance, and 0.5% (n=1,041) met all three criteria (Figure 2).

### Age and vital status of PDLS cohort and its disability subgroups in TriNetX dataset

The mean age was 77.9 ± 7.7 at the time of PDLS identification in TriNetX database (Table 2). The mean age was slightly lower for those having wheelchair dependence (74.7 ± 9.5 y) and personal care assistance (74.7 ± 7.1 y). The mean age was higher in those diagnosed with dementia (78.9 ± 7.1 y) and those with multiple diagnoses (78.1 ± 7.6 y).

By February 2023, 45% percent (n=88,071) of all PDLS were reported to be deceased. About half of PDLS patients with dementia had died at the time of analysis (49.2%, n=68,368) followed closely by those with multiple disabilities needs/diagnoses (43%, n=9,027). Those with only wheelchair dependence (36.2%, n=3,369) or personal care assistance (29.1%, n=7,307) had fewer deaths (Table 2). For those who had died, the average age at death was 81.8 ± 6.6 y, similar across all groups although slightly lower in the Wheelchair and Personal Assistance groups (Table 2)

### Demographic characteristics of PDLS cohort and disability subgroups in TriNetX dataset

A majority of the PDLS patients were male [58.4% (n=113,406) versus 41.6% female (n=80,812) (Table 2)]. The pattern of male predominance seemed to persist in all PDLS subgroups, except for those with PDLS + wheelchair dependence that were sex equivalent. Race was unknown for 71.9% (n=139,630) of PDLS patients; 25.8% (n=50,035) were documented as White, 2.2% (n=4,236) as Black or African American, and 0.2% (n=396) were Asian. Similarly, ethnicity was reported sparsely for PDLS patients: there were no reports for 69.9% (n=135,812); 27.6% (n=53,635) reported as not Hispanic or Latino, and only 2.5% (n=4,850) Hispanic or Latino. [Statistical analyses are in Supplemental tables]

### Use of antiparkinson and adjuvant drugs in PDLS

We queried the database for use of antiparkinson and related adjuvant drugs in PDLS (see Methods and Supplemental Information for details). Slightly more than 60% of the people we identified as PDLS were using none of the drugs we have categorized as providing symptomatic relief to Parkinson’s patients; these drugs include levodopa in any formulation, dopamine agonists, or MAO inhibitors or cholinesterase inhibitors (Table 2).

## Discussion

Lewis et al.12 recently highlighted the current landscape of PD progression in the early 21st-century, especially noting that PD patients remain largely independent in the first decade of disease. There is, however, a paucity of data and clinical metrics capturing the real-world PD progression in patients beyond 10 years, and/or in later stages of disease. Here, we have used the TriNetX clinical/claims database to capture and characterize patients in late-stages of disease (PDLS), using an operational definition advocated by Coelho and Ferreira.15 Our findings suggest a significant proportion of PD patients (∼20%) meet criteria for PDLS. This is consistent with more limited studies both within31,34 and outside the US.30Given that the number of PD patients is expected to double globally by 2040, there likely will be dramatic increases in both the prevalence and healthcare cost that occur for people with PDLS.30 Thus, it is imperative to include late stage PD population as clinical, social and research priority as a potential and emerging health emergency.

### PDLS as a new clinical stage entity: guide the assessment of clinical and society needs

With improved pharmacologic treatment, advanced therapies, and increasing access to care, patients with PD are living longer and reaching later stages of the disease. In this study, we estimated the prevalence of the PD population in the late-stages, guided by an operational definition advocated by Coelho and Ferreira.15.

Our current data underscores the limitation of a motor-centric staging, as embodied by H&Y staging, by demonstrating its inadequacy to capture greater than 95% in late stages with unmet needs. Our data also pointed out that dementia is composed of the largest group (>75%) of PD patients in the late stage, this number is consistent with the dementia prevalence observed by other groups.14,35-37 Recent studies clearly suggested that those with PD-normal cognitive function may have a normal life expectancy, whereas those with PD-MCI or PD-dementia may have reduced life expectancy.38 Together, our findings support the clinical and research priorities of dementia in PD, converging with the current NIH priority of Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders.

As the research on better staging terminology is still underway for PD patient,24 clinical coding practices vary significantly among providers. There is a lack of standardization as well as non-specific coding for PD to capture disease-associated manifestations. Dashtipour et al.39 have highlighted the limitations that exist with the current ICD-10-CM coding for PD, particularly in delineating motor complications with disease progression. Inclusion of disability milestones separately from the standard PD diagnostic code (G20) can be an initial way to capture more accurately the patient status and disease severity. With improved capability of tracking larger populations afforded by the expansion and accessibility of claims-based databases (e.g., TriNetX), accurate coding becomes integral to understand the impact of interventions and management and informing research on PD subpopulations like PDLS.

According to a recent global health (GBA) report, PD is the fast growth neurological disorder, outpaced all other neurological disorders, including AD and related disorders (ADRD).40 PDLS patients are anticipated to have increased both prevalence and health care system utilization, highlighting the urgent need for improved identification, and tracking of this proportion of PD patients in the current health care system. The results will help guide more equitable, and impactful health care resource allocation.

### PDLS as a biomedical opportunity: an understudied research population

Current research efforts focus primarily on early-stage PD. The new data shed light on the importance and urgency of integrating efforts to reduce the late-stage disease burden into current research paradigms. As we have noted,12 the treatment options for symptom relief, disease-modifying therapies, and neuroprotective interventions have continued to evolve.41 Most of the existing approaches, however, are not focused on PDLS patients with the exception of parenteral administration of levodopa/carbidopa formulations. The latter has shown consistent but modest effectiveness and can be associated with significant adverse events based on the invasive nature of the procedure.42-44 Moreover, PDLS patients are likely to have had dopamine terminal degeneration such that processing levodopa adequately is no longer possible.13,45-48 Thus, PDLS patients may forego specialized care under the assumption there are limited care options or available pharmacologic treatments.14

Recent publications from others raise awareness that late-stage PD patients is an important and neglected group.49-55 The care for PDLS patients shifts to providing support and comfort, often with poor QoL. This underscores the need for multidisciplinary individualized treatment goals and identifying appropriate pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions carefully chosen from existing toolsets for late stage PD patients.56 Similarly, PDLS patients are usually excluded from pharmaceutical trials. Of the available treatments, most are pharmacological and targeted at dementia (e.g., rivastigmine, donepezil, galantamine) or dopaminergically-induced psychosis (e.g., clozapine, pimavanserin) with modest levels of success.20,57,58

Current research has yet to address the needs of PDLS patients. Deep brain stimulation is an established surgical treatment option for patients with troublesome motor fluctuations, responsive to levodopa and without dementia.59,60 PDLS patients who have undergone DBS also experience disability PDLS milestones, and are excluded from, or considered ineligible, for PD research.61,62 In clinical practice, many PDAS and PDLS patients with/without DBS and their caregivers still look for treatment and research opportunities.13,63 Although, potential disease-modifying therapies and neuroprotective interventions in early and even earlier (prodromal stages)64,65 continue to be sought..

Finally, we noted that >60% of the PDLS population were using none of the drugs common for treating PD including levodopa. This finding is both novel and surprising because levodopa is gold-standard for treating PD, even only for symptomatic relief and incrementally for comfort care. The exact cause for this finding is unclear, one hypothesis is that the near total loss of striatal loss of dopamine innervation in PDLS causes levodopa conversion to dopamine in the striatum to be insufficient, rendering levodopa ineffective and/or causing intolerable side effects due to off-target effects.13,66,67 Similarly, available D2/3 dopamine agonists have only modest antiparkinson effects and dose-escalation is not possible because of extrastriatal side effects. It also is possible that a subset of these patients may have been misdiagnosed, and have a parkinsonism like MSA, PSP, of LBD rather than PD.68 Because of the more rapid clinical progression and the lower prevalence of atypical parkinsonism, it is likely they constitute only a small minority of the 60%, but detailed examination would be worthwhile. Another possibility is that some portion of the 60% of patients not using antiparkinson drugs was the result of missing data as often occurs in large databases.

### Limitations and future directions (

We are cognizant of several limitations of our analyses. Inherent to real world claims-based datasets, significant demographic information (e.g., race, ethnicity) were under-reported. Indeed, there was no race and ethnicity information for two-thirds of the subjects, making it impossible to determine if a specific underserved population could be identified.69 Given no current formal definition for PDLS the operational definition utilized is restricted to three specific disability milestones. Moreover, there are inaccuracies in data entry and limitations in the diagnostic codes for PD and PD-associated symptoms within EMR systems.11,70,71 This is emphasized in utilizing codes such as personal care assistance where degree of assistance necessary is not detailed. Future coding iterations may benefit by providing more granular details to reflect patient status. We also could not estimate the exact data of PD symptoms onset or diagnoses as the subtle motor- and/or non-motor symptoms may occur earlier than the date when patients sought professional advice that would have been into the TriNetX. There also is a lack of data on the subspecialties (a movement disorder specialist), if any, that made the PD diagnoses. Additionally, certain diagnostic codes may have been under-utilized, contributing to under-estimates of disease progression, although the driving factors for such practices are unclear and should be studied further to improve EMR data capture.

Other cognitive disability milestones such as psychosis/hallucinations were not included in this analysis because heterogeneity and limitations inherent in the definition and coding practices likely are amplified in such databases.72 These data were obtained from multiple health care organizations in the US, but may not fully represent the overall PD population since a third of the US population was not captured by this EMR database. Our data also suggest that there may be either unequal access to healthcare, or markedly under-reported prevalence of PD, in several racial or ethnic groups, an issue that requires attention. Therefore, the number of PDLS estimated based on ICD codes in our study is certainly an underestimate.

## Conclusions

The prevalence of PDLS is significant, and thus its impact will increase markedly in the future. Our data indicate that the levodopa-based treatment regimens may lose utility in PDLS, as more than 60% of these patients are no longer taking antiparkinson drugs. Together, these data are more evidence of this large and underserved population in our system. Future clinical and research priorities should include the PDLS to improve understanding of healthcare utilization patterns, medication status, cost-burden, and intervention-based outcomes. These insights will be meaningful in clinical setting as we can choose the current most effective therapies, either pharmacological, surgical, and supportive, for PDES, PDAS and PDLS, respectively. Scientifically, we should embrace the challenges of a growing presence of PDLS, capture the potential of emerging novel dopaminergic agents,13,63,66,73 and devise future strategies to address these unmet needs. The implementation of new diagnostic codes for late-stage patients may provide simpler and defined disability milestones that encourage tracking of disease progression, inform health economics burden, and identify supportive treatment options in real world health care system.

## Supporting information

Supplement 2: Drug Codes searched [[supplements/301955_file02.xlsx]](pending:yes)

## Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript

## Financial disclosure/conflict of interest

Sol De Jesus has received fees as an educational consultant from Medtronic Inc. Xuemei Huang has received research funding from the NIH relevant to this study (U01 NS112008). Richard Mailman was a consultant for D1 agonist-related matters for Cerevel Therapeutics, the latter company just acquired by AbbVie, Inc.

## Funding Sources

None

## Disclaimer

Dr. Lewis now is employed by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS). Her role in this study was as an employee of Penn State University. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors, and do not reflect the views of the National Institutes of Health or any other external organization.

## Footnotes

*   The results are unchanged but the manuscript includes new background and discussion. This is a final copy.

*   Received January 29, 2024.
*   Revision received July 1, 2024.
*   Accepted July 3, 2024.


*   © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

## References

1.  1.Erro R, Picillo M, Vitale C, et al. The non-motor side of the honeymoon period of Parkinson’s disease and its relationship with quality of life: a 4-year longitudinal study. Eur J Neurol 2016;23(11):1673–1673.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/ene.13106&link_type=DOI) 

2.  2.Rascol O, Payoux P, Ory F, Ferreira JJ, Brefel-Courbon C, Montastruc JL. Limitations of current Parkinson’s disease therapy. Ann Neurol 2003;53 Suppl 3:S3–12; discussion S12-15.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/ana.10513&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12666094&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom) 

3.  3.Calne DB, Snow BJ, Lee C. Criteria for diagnosing Parkinson’s disease. Ann Neurol 1992;32 Suppl:S125–S127.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/ana.410320721&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=1510370&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1992JH40500020&link_type=ISI) 

4.  4.Hughes AJ, Daniel SE, Kilford L, Lees AJ. Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease: a clinico-pathological study of 100 cases. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1992;55(3):181–181.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiam5ucCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiI1NS8zLzE4MSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzA3LzAzLzIwMjQuMDEuMjkuMjQzMDE5NTUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

5.  5.Hoehn MM, Yahr MD. Parkinsonism: onset, progression and mortality. Neurology 1967;17(5):427–427.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1212/WNL.17.5.427&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=6067254&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom) 

6.  6.Marras C, McDermott MP, Rochon PA, et al. Survival in Parkinson disease: thirteen-year follow-up of the DATATOP cohort. Neurology 2005;64(1):87–87.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1212/01.WNL.0000148603.44618.19&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom) 

7.  7.Sweet RD, McDowell FH. Five years’ treatment of Parkinson’s disease with levodopa. Therapeutic results and survival of 100 patients. Annals of internal medicine 1975;83(4):456–463.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/0003-4819-83-4-456&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=1166978&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1975AS00900002&link_type=ISI) 

8.  8.Barbeau A. High-level levodopa therapy in Parkinson’s disease: five years later. Trans Am Neurol Assoc 1974;99:160–163.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=4463526&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom) 

9.  9.Barbeau A. Six years of high-level levodopa therapy in severely akinetic parkinsonian patients. Arch Neurol 1976;33(5):333–333.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archneur.1976.00500050019004&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=817698&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1976BP87800004&link_type=ISI) 

10. 10.De Pablo-Fernandez E, Tur C, Revesz T, Lees AJ, Holton JL, Warner TT. Association of Autonomic Dysfunction With Disease Progression and Survival in Parkinson Disease. JAMA Neurol 2017;74(8):970–970.
    
    

11. 11.Hughes AJ, Daniel SE, Blankson S, Lees AJ. A clinicopathologic study of 100 cases of Parkinson’s disease. Arch Neurol 1993;50(2):140–140.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archneur.1993.00540020018011&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8431132&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1993KL17400009&link_type=ISI) 

12. 12.Lewis MM, Cheng XV, D. G, et al. Clinical progression of Parkinson’s disease in the early 21st century: Insights from AMP-PD dataset. medRxiv 2024;2024.01.29.24301950:2024/301950.
    
    

13. 13.Lewis MM, Van Scoy LJ, De Jesus S, et al. Dopamine D(1) Agonists: First Potential Treatment for Late-Stage Parkinson’s Disease. Biomolecules 2023;13(5).
    
    

14. 14.Schrag A, Hommel A, Lorenzl S, et al. The late stage of Parkinson’s-results of a large multinational study on motor and non-motor complications. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2020;75:91–96.
    
    

15. 15.Coelho M, Ferreira JJ. Late-stage Parkinson disease. Nat Rev Neurol 2012;8(8):435–435.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nrneurol.2012.126&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22777251&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom) 

16. 16.Collaborators GBDN. Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol 2019;18(5):459–459.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30499-X&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom) 

17. 17.Bloem BR, Okun MS, Klein C. Parkinson’s disease. Lancet 2021;397(10291):2284–2284.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00218-x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom) 

18. 18.Rossi A, Berger K, Chen H, Leslie D, Mailman RB, Huang X. Projection of the prevalence of Parkinson’s disease in the coming decades: Revisited. Mov Disord 2018;33(1):156–156.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/mds.27063&link_type=DOI) 

19. 19.Siderowf A, Concha-Marambio L, Lafontant DE, et al. Assessment of heterogeneity among participants in the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative cohort using alpha-synuclein seed amplification: a cross-sectional study. Lancet Neurol 2023;22(5):407–407.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/s1474-4422(23)00109-6&link_type=DOI) 

20. 20.Tanner CM. Advances in environmental epidemiology. Mov Disord 2010;25 Suppl 1:S58–S62.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/mds.22721&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20187243&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom) 

21. 21.Kasten M, Chade A, Tanner CM. Epidemiology of Parkinson’s disease. Handb Clin Neurol 2007;83:129–151.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0072-9752(07)83006-5&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18808913&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom) 

22. 22.Tanner CM, Aston DA. Epidemiology of Parkinson’s disease and akinetic syndromes. Curr Opin Neurol 2000;13(4):427–427.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00019052-200008000-00010&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10970060&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom) 

23. 23.Goetz CG, Poewe W, Rascol O, et al. Movement Disorder Society Task Force report on the Hoehn and Yahr staging scale: status and recommendations. Mov Disord 2004;19(9):1020–1028.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/mds.20213&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15372591&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000223830200004&link_type=ISI) 

24. 24.Cardoso F, Goetz CG, Mestre TA, et al. A Statement of the MDS on Biological Definition, Staging, and Classification of Parkinson’s Disease. Mov Disord 2023.
    
    

25. 25.1.  Gillingham FJ, 
    2.  Donaldson MC
    
    Schwab RS, England A. Projection technique for evaluating surgery in Parkinson’s disease. In: Gillingham FJ, Donaldson MC, eds. 3rd Symposium on Parkinson’s Disease. Edinburgh: Livingstone, 1969:152–157.
    
    

26. 26.Fabbri M, Zibetti M, Rizzone MG, et al. Should We Consider Deep Brain Stimulation Discontinuation in Late-Stage Parkinson’s Disease? Mov Disord 2020;35(8):1379–1379.
    
    

27. 27.Fabbri M, Coelho M, Abreu D, et al. Do patients with late-stage Parkinson’s disease still respond to levodopa? Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2016;26:10–16.
    
    

28. 28.Reinoso G, Allen JC, Jr.., Au WL, Seah SH, Tay KY, Tan LC. Clinical evolution of Parkinson’s disease and prognostic factors affecting motor progression: 9-year follow-up study. Eur J Neurol 2014.
    
    

29. 29.Evans JR, Mason SL, Williams-Gray CH, et al. The natural history of treated Parkinson’s disease in an incident, community based cohort. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2011;82(10):1112–1112.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiam5ucCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMDoiODIvMTAvMTExMiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzA3LzAzLzIwMjQuMDEuMjkuMjQzMDE5NTUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

30. 30.Martinez-Castrillo JC, Martinez-Martin P, Burgos A, et al. Prevalence of Advanced Parkinson’s Disease in Patients Treated in the Hospitals of the Spanish National Healthcare System: The PARADISE Study. Brain Sci 2021;11(12).
    
    

31. 31.Dahodwala N, Li P, Jahnke J, et al. Burden of Parkinson’s Disease by Severity: Health Care Costs in the U.S. Medicare Population. Mov Disord 2021;36(1):133–133.
    
    

32. 32.Fabbri M, Kauppila LA, Ferreira JJ, Rascol O. Challenges and Perspectives in the Management of Late-Stage Parkinson’s Disease. Journal of Parkinson’s disease 2020;10(1):S75-S83.
    
    

33. 33.TriNetX. Search of TriNetX Network of electronic medical records. TriNetX, LLC is compliant with HIPAA and ISMS-only de-identified patient records were sued, and study was exempted from Institutional Review Board approval. January 2022. 2022.
    
    

34. 34.Dahodwala N, Pettit AR, Jahnke J, et al. Use of a medication-based algorithm to identify advanced Parkinson’s disease in administrative claims data: Associations with claims-based indicators of disease severity. Clin Park Relat Disord 2020;3:100046.
    
    

35. 35.Hely MA, Reid WG, Adena MA, Halliday GM, Morris JG. The Sydney multicenter study of Parkinson’s disease: the inevitability of dementia at 20 years. Mov Disord 2008;23(6):837–844.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/mds.21956&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18307261&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000255600200010&link_type=ISI) 

36. 36.Fabbri M, Coelho M, Abreu D, et al. Dysphagia predicts poor outcome in late-stage Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2019;64:73–81.
    
    

37. 37.Severiano ESC, Fabbri M, Godinho C, et al. Profile of cognitive impairment in late-stage Parkinson’s disease. Brain Behav 2022;12(4):e2537.
    
    

38. 38.Backstrom D, Granasen G, Domellof ME, et al. Early predictors of mortality in parkinsonism and Parkinson disease: A population-based study. Neurology 2018;91(22):e2045–e2056.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1212/WNL.0000000000006576&link_type=DOI) 

39. 39.Dashtipour K, Bahroo LB, Pagan FL, Torres-Yaghi Y, Gupta F, Isaacson SH. Parkinson Disease ICD-10-CM Coding. Practical neurology 2021;September 2021:40–48.
    
    

40. 40.Calabrese VP. Projected number of people with Parkinson disease in the most populous nations, 2005 through 2030. Neurology 2007;69(2):223–223; author reply 224.
    
    

41. 41.McFarthing K, Rafaloff G, Baptista M, et al. Parkinson’s Disease Drug Therapies in the Clinical Trial Pipeline: 2022 Update. Journal of Parkinson’s disease 2022;12(4):1073–1073.
    
    

42. 42.Antonini A, Odin P, Pahwa R, et al. The Long-Term Impact of Levodopa/Carbidopa Intestinal Gel on ‘Off’-time in Patients with Advanced Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review. Adv Ther 2021;38(6):2854–2854.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s12325-021-01747-1&link_type=DOI) 

43. 43.Olanow CW, Kieburtz K, Odin P, et al. Continuous intrajejunal infusion of levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel for patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease: a randomised, controlled, double-blind, double-dummy study. Lancet Neurol 2014;13(2):141–141.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70293-X&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24361112&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom) 

44. 44.Nyholm D, Nilsson Remahl AI, Dizdar N, et al. Duodenal levodopa infusion monotherapy vs oral polypharmacy in advanced Parkinson disease. Neurology 2005;64(2):216–216.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1212/01.WNL.0000149637.70961.4C&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15668416&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom) 

45. 45.Marsden CD, Parkes JD. “On-off” effects in patients with Parkinson’s disease on chronic levodopa therapy. Lancet 1976;1(7954):292–292.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(76)91416-1&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=55599&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1976BE70000017&link_type=ISI) 

46. 46.Spencer SE, Wooten GF. Altered pharmacokinetics of L-dopa metabolism in rat striatum deprived of dopaminergic innervation. Neurology 1984;34(8):1105–1105.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1212/wnl.34.8.1105&link_type=DOI) 

47. 47.Nutt JG. On-off phenomenon: relation to levodopa pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Ann Neurol 1987;22(4):535–535.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/ana.410220415&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=3324948&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1987K570600013&link_type=ISI) 

48. 48.Kopin IJ. The pharmacology of Parkinson’s disease therapy: an update. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 1993;33:467–495.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8494348&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1993KX52600018&link_type=ISI) 

49. 49.Schrag A, Hommel A, Lorenzl S, et al. The late stage of Parkinson’s-results of a large multinational study on motor and non-motor complications. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2020;75:91–96.
    
    

50. 50.Rosqvist K, Odin P, Lorenzl S, et al. Factors Associated with Health-Related Quality of Life in Late-Stage Parkinson’s Disease. Mov Disord Clin Pract 2021;8(4):563–563.
    
    

51. 51.Markopoulou K, Aasly J, Chung SJ, et al. Longitudinal Monitoring of Parkinson’s Disease in Different Ethnic Cohorts: The DodoNA and LONG-PD Study. Front Neurol 2020;11:548.
    
    

52. 52.Hosking A, Hommel A, Lorenzl S, et al. Characteristics of Patients with Late-Stage Parkinsonism Who are Nursing Home Residents Compared with those Living at Home. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2021;22(2):440–440.e442.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jamda.2020.06.025&link_type=DOI) 

53. 53.Hommel A, Meinders MJ, Weerkamp NJ, et al. Optimizing Treatment in Undertreated Late-Stage Parkinsonism: A Pragmatic Randomized Trial. Journal of Parkinson’s disease 2020;10(3):1171–1171.
    
    

54. 54.Hommel A, Meinders MJ, Lorenzl S, et al. The Prevalence and Determinants of Neuropsychiatric Symptoms in Late-Stage Parkinsonism. Mov Disord Clin Pract 2020;7(5):531–531.
    
    

55. 55.Fabbri M, Coelho M, Garon M, et al. Personalized Care in Late-Stage Parkinson’s Disease: Challenges and Opportunities. J Pers Med 2022;12(5).
    
    

56. 56.Hwang H, Norris SA. Managing Advanced Parkinson Disease. Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology 2021;34(4):289–289.
    
    

57. 57.Marras C, Beck JC, Bower JH, et al. Prevalence of Parkinson’s disease across North America. NPJ Parkinsons Dis 2018;4:21.
    
    

58. 58.Williams L, Qiu J, Waller S, Tsui D, Griffith J, Fung VSC. Challenges in managing late-stage Parkinson’s disease: Practical approaches and pitfalls. Aust J Gen Pract 2022;51(10):778–778.
    
    

59. 59.Mitchell KT, Younce JR, Norris SA, et al. Bilateral Subthalamic Nucleus Deep Brain Stimulation in Elderly Patients With Parkinson Disease: A Case-Control Study. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2020;19(3):234–234.
    
    

60. 60.Schuepbach WM, Rau J, Knudsen K, et al. Neurostimulation for Parkinson’s disease with early motor complications. N Engl J Med 2013;368(7):610–610.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1205158&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23406026&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000322659600006&link_type=ISI) 

61. 61.Aquino C, Luo L, Agarwal P, et al. Deep Brain Stimulation as an Exclusion Criterion in Parkinson’s Disease Studies: Time to Rethink? Mov Disord 2023;38(9):1602–1602.
    
    

62. 62.Mahlknecht P, Foltynie T, Limousin P, Poewe W. How Does Deep Brain Stimulation Change the Course of Parkinson’s Disease? Mov Disord 2022;37(8):1581–1581.
    
    

63. 63.Huang X, Lewis MM, Van Scoy LJ, et al. The D1/D5 Dopamine Partial Agonist PF-06412562 in Advanced-Stage Parkinson’s Disease: A Feasibility Study. Journal of Parkinson’s disease 2020;10(4):1515–1515.
    
    

64. 64.Prasad EM, Hung SY. Current Therapies in Clinical Trials of Parkinson’s Disease: A 2021 Update. Pharmaceuticals (Basel) 2021;14(8).
    
    

65. 65.Gouda NA, Elkamhawy A, Cho J. Emerging Therapeutic Strategies for Parkinson’s Disease and Future Prospects: A 2021 Update. Biomedicines 2022;10(2).
    
    

66. 66.Mailman RB, Yang Y, Huang X. D1, not D2, dopamine receptor activation dramatically improves MPTP-induced parkinsonism unresponsive to levodopa. European journal of pharmacology 2021;892:173760.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ejphar.2020.173760&link_type=DOI) 

67. 67.Goldstein M, Lieberman A, Pearson J. Relatively high levels of dopamine in nucleus accumbens of levodopa treated patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Neural Transm 1982;54(1-2):129–134.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/BF01249286&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=6125563&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1982NY63100013&link_type=ISI) 

68. 68.Huang X, Kanthasamy AG. Seeding and amplifying parkinsonism research. Parkinsonism and Related Disorders 2023;117:105934 (on-line).
    
    

69. 69.Klinger EV, Carlini SV, Gonzalez I, et al. Accuracy of race, ethnicity, and language preference in an electronic health record. J Gen Intern Med 2015;30(6):719–719.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s11606-014-3102-8&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom) 

70. 70.Hill EJ, Sharma J, Wissel B, et al. Parkinson’s disease diagnosis codes are insufficiently accurate for electronic health record research and differ by race. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2023;114:105764.
    
    

71. 71.Rajput AH, Rozdilsky B, Rajput A. Accuracy of clinical diagnosis in parkinsonism--a prospective study. Can J Neurol Sci 1991;18(3):275–275.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=1913360&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1991GD19700001&link_type=ISI) 

72. 72.Aarsland D, Batzu L, Halliday GM, et al. Parkinson disease-associated cognitive impairment. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2021;7(1):47.
    
    

73. 73.Mailman R, Huang X, Nichols DE. Parkinson’s disease and D1 dopamine receptors. Curr Opin Investig Drugs 2001;2(11):1582–1582.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11763161&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.01.29.24301955.atom)