MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992169766 · doi:10.1177/155005941004100206

The Contribution of Neuroimaging for the Study of Cognitive Deficits in Parkinson's Disease

2010· article· en· W1992169766 on OpenAlexafffund
Oury Monchi, Kristina Martinu, Antonio P. Strafella

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical EEG and Neuroscience · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversité de MontréalCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchParkinson Society Canada
KeywordsNeuroimagingNeuroscienceParkinson's diseaseCognitionFunctional magnetic resonance imagingPsychologyPositron emission tomographyMagnetic resonance imagingFunctional neuroimagingDopamineDiseaseMedicinePathologyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The last few years have seen an increase in the number of studies using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) along with receptor imaging and regional cerebral blood flow Positron Emission Tomography (PET) to understand the neurobiological underpinnings of cognitive deficits in Parkinson's disease (PD). These studies have shown evidence that the nigrostriatal degeneration solely cannot account for these deficits and that involvement of other neural systems such as the mesocortical dopamine may also play an important role. In this article, we provide a review of neuroimaging results regarding the role of possible compensatory activity, L-Dopa medication, and difference in genotypes on the cognitive deficits observed in PD. Finally, some future avenues for research are proposed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical EEG and NeuroscienceSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207