MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059219994 · doi:10.1159/000230689

HOMER1 Promoter Analysis in Parkinson’s Disease: Association Study with Psychotic Symptoms

2009· article· en· W2059219994 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Vincenzo De Luca, Grazia Annesi, Elvira Valeria De Marco, Andrea de Bartolomeis, Giuseppe Nicoletti, Pierfrancesco Pugliese, Giovanni Muscettola, Paolo Barone, Aldo Quattrone

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychobiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological diseases and metabolism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
KeywordsHaplotypePsychosisParkinson's diseaseDyskinesiaInternal medicineSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)MedicineAlleleDiseasePsychiatryGeneticsGeneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: HOMER1 gene expression has been linked to abnormal movements in animals receiving chronic administration of antipsychotics. The continuing neurodegeneration of Parkinson's disease (PD) and the prolonged use of L-dopa are associated with motor complications, such as dyskinesia, and psychotic side effects, including hallucinations and paranoid delusions. Approximately 25-40% of patients with idiopathic PD experience hallucinations. Genetic variability within different candidate genes has been implicated in the clinical severity of sporadic PD in many populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated 3 polymorphisms located in the 5' flanking region of the HOMER1 gene within a sample of 131 sporadic PD patients from southern Italy, using a 3-SNP genotype and haplotype combination (rs4704559, rs10942891, rs4704560). RESULTS: Our study implicates the effects of allele A of the rs4704559 marker in susceptibility to psychotic symptoms in PD (chi2 = 8.092, 1 d.f., p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Even though our results are preliminary, this HOMER1 gene variant may represent a biomarker for side effect evaluation in PD patients.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations28
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychobiologySame topicNeurological diseases and metabolismFrench-language works237,207