Lack of Regional Selectivity During the Progression of Parkinson Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dopamine terminal loss in the putamen of patients with Parkinson disease (PD) shows a regional heterogeneity, reflecting selective vulnerability of degenerating neurons to mechanisms of cell death. HYPOTHESIS: If the same pathogenic mechanisms are responsible for the onset and progression of PD, the regional selectivity of dopamine cell loss will be the same throughout the course of the disorder. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the regional selectivity of dopamine terminal loss during the progression of PD. PARTICIPANTS: We studied 67 patients with PD and 20 healthy subjects using positron emission tomography with [(11)C](+/-)dihydrotetrabenazine (DTBZ). RESULTS: Regional values of DTBZ binding potential (calculated as maximum specific binding [B(max)] divided by the equilibrium dissociation constant K(d)) against disease duration in the putamen of PD patients were best described by a multivariate exponential model with distinct parallel asymptotic values that were significantly (P<.001) different across 4 regions of the putamen. The extent of loss of DTBZ binding potential with disease progression during the clinical stage of PD (early vs late PD) was similar between the anterior (-33%, using early PD as the baseline) and posterior (-29%) putamen. In contrast, the extent of loss of DTBZ binding potential in early PD, which reflects the cumulated loss of DTBZ binding potential from the onset of the disorder (in healthy subjects vs those with early PD), was significantly (P<.001) lower in the posterior (-58%, using healthy subjects as the baseline) than the anterior (-42%) putamen. CONCLUSION: To the extent that DTBZ positron emission tomography provides an accurate estimate of loss of dopamine neurons, our findings suggest that the mechanisms responsible for the progression of PD may not be the same as those responsible for its onset.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".