MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2010· review· en· W1623483427 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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