Asymmetrical lateral ventricular enlargement in Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A recent case report suggested the presence of asymmetrical lateral ventricular enlargement associated with motor asymmetry in Parkinson's disease (PD). The current study explored these associations further. METHODS: Magnetic resonance imaging (3T) scans were obtained on 17 PD and 15 healthy control subjects at baseline and 12-43 months later. Baseline and longitudinal lateral ventricular volumetric changes were compared between contralateral and ipsilateral ventricles in PD subjects relative to symptom onset side and in controls relative to their dominant hand. Correlations between changes in ventricular volume and United Parkinson's disease rating scale motor scores (UPDRS-III) whilst on medication were determined. RESULTS: The lateral ventricle contralateral to symptom onset side displayed a faster rate of enlargement compared to the ipsilateral (P = 0.004) in PD subjects, with no such asymmetry detected (P = 0.312) in controls. There was a positive correlation between ventricular enlargement and worsening motor function assessed by UPDRS-III scores (r = 0.96, P < 0.001). DISCUSSION: There is asymmetrical lateral ventricular enlargement that is associated with PD motor asymmetry and progression. Further studies are warranted to investigate the underlying mechanism(s), as well as the potential of using volumetric measurements as a marker for PD progression.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".