MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Influence of Apolipoprotein E3 on the Production of Paired Helical Filament in Guamanian Parkinsonism‐dementia Complex/Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Alzheimer's Disease

2001· article· en· W2091541068 on OpenAlexafffund
Takehide Tsuda, D. R. Crapper McLachlan, Yasuto Itoyama

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychogeriatrics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersConnaught FundUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Miami
KeywordsAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisApolipoprotein ENeurofibrillary tangleParkinsonismDementiaDegenerative diseasePathologyPathologicalTauopathyMedicineTau proteinDiseaseAlzheimer's diseaseNeurodegenerationSenile plaques

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background : Neuropathologically, Guamanian parkinsonism‐dementia complex (PDC) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) are characterized by neuronal loss and neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs). The NFTs are principally composed of paired helical filaments (PHFs) consisting of hyperphosphorylated tau and have been shown to be histopathologically similar to those in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Recent biochemical studies have suggested that the binding of apolipoprotein E3 (ApoE3) to tau may interfere with the hyperphosphorylation of tau, thus resulting in neuroprotective effects. Methods : In order to clarify the influence of ApoE3 on the production of PHFs in various pathological conditions, the ɛ3 allele frequency in patients with Guamanian PDC and ALS, as well as AD, was examined. Results : The results obtained in this study showed no significant differences between these affected groups and each of the controls in terms of the frequency of the ApoE3 allele. Conclusion : Although ApoE3 has been implicated in the production of PHFs, the present study suggests that ApoE3 may not have a strong inhibitory effect on the production of NFTs in these affected 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)0.001
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 score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychogeriatricsSame topicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ResearchFrench-language works237,207