MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042369196 · doi:10.1002/mds.22675

Hereditary parkinsonism: Parkinson disease look‐alikes—An algorithm for clinicians to “<i>PARK</i>” genes and beyond

2009· review· en· W2042369196 on OpenAlexafffund
Christine Klein, Susanne A. Schneider, Anthony E. Lang

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological diseases and metabolism
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
FundersDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftVolkswagen FoundationOntario Problem Gambling Research CentreHermann und Lilly Schilling-Stiftung für Medizinische ForschungParkinson's Disease FoundationDystonia Medical Research FoundationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Parkinson FoundationMichael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research
KeywordsParkinsonismParkinson's diseaseDiseaseDegenerative diseaseMedicineNeuroscienceGerontologyPsychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past decade, a number of genetic causes of parkinsonism have been identified. As a consequence, clinicians have to consider an increasing range of differential diagnoses when confronted with a patient with parkinsonism with a positive family history. While well-established monogenic forms with PARK acronyms have been reviewed extensively, less emphasis has been placed on other inherited conditions that may also present with signs of parkinsonism or even mimic idiopathic Parkinson's disease clinically. In this review, we focus on three different scenarios in patients with an overall early age of onset of parkinsonism: (i) atypical features in patients with mutations in one of the "PARK" genes; (ii) classical parkinsonism due to mutations in "other than-PARK" genes or yet other genes where parkinsonism may be a well-recognized, concomitant, or even an isolated feature; (iii) atypical parkinsonism in other genetic disorders which are, however, typically characterized by features other than parkinsonism. Atypical features in patients from Group I include, for example, a slower disease course (PARK2, PARK6, PARK7) or dementia (PARK1/4, PARK14). Conditions in Group II have been designated by a DYT or SCA acronym (for example, DYT5 or SCA3) and also include patients with heterozygous GBA mutations, mitochondrial gene mutations. Group III comprises mutations in the FMR1, MAPT, GRN, ATP7B, PANK2, FBXO7, CHAC, FTL1, Huntingtin, JPH3 genes, and a number of even rarer, miscellaneous conditions.

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)0.004
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.008

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations73
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement DisordersSame topicNeurological diseases and metabolismFrench-language works237,207