MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Role of Dopamine in Symptoms and Treatment of Apathy in Alzheimer's Disease

2010· review· en· W1623483427 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Mitchell, Nathan Herrmann, Krista L. Lanctôt

Bibliographic record

VenueCNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApathyDopaminergicDementiaDiseaseNeuroscienceDopaminePsychologyPopulationAlzheimer's diseasePsychiatryMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by a number of serious and debilitating behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). The most common of these BPSD is apathy, which represents a major source of morbidity and premature institutionalization in the AD population. Many studies have identified discrete changes to the dopaminergic (DAergic) system in patients with AD. The DAergic system is closely related to the brain reward system (BRS) and some studies have suggested that dysfunction in the DAergic system may account for symptoms of apathy in the AD population. METHOD: Changes to the dopamine (DA) system in AD will be reviewed, and evidence supporting the involvement of the DAergic system in the development of apathy will be examined. Additionally, some pharmacological interventions with DA activity have been identified. The utility of these treatments in the AD population will be reviewed, with a focus on apathy as an outcome. RESULTS: Evidence presented in this review suggests that DA dysfunction in discrete brain areas is an important correlate of apathy in AD and that the DAergic system may be a rational target for pharmacological treatment of apathy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations137
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCNS Neuroscience & TherapeuticsSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207