MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100365948 · doi:10.1002/mds.25994

Phenotypic variability of PINK1 expression: 12 Years' clinical follow‐up of two Italian families

2014· article· en· W2100365948 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lucia Ricciardi, Simona Petrucci, Arianna Guidubaldi, Tàmara Ialongo, Laura Serra, Alessandro Ferraris, Barbara Spanò, Marco Bozzali, Enza Maria Valente, Anna Rita Bentivoglio

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenotypePINK1Expression (computer science)GeneticsMedicineBiologyPediatricsInternal medicineParkinParkinson's diseaseGeneComputer scienceDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mutations in the PINK1 gene are the second most frequent cause of autosomal recessive early-onset parkinsonism. METHODS: We evaluated five affected PINK1 homozygous and 14 heterozygous mutation carriers from two large Italian families over a 12-year follow-up period. Motor, nonmotor, cognitive, psychiatric, and behavioral profiles were systematically assessed. Four homozygotes and eight heterozygotes underwent magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: All homozygotes showed a mild progression of motor signs and a persistent excellent response to levodopa. All but one patient complained of nonmotor symptoms and sleep impairment. Three presented impulse control disorders and two anxiety and apathy. All obtained abnormal scores at Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and in tests sensitive to frontal functions; one presented a global cognitive impairment. Three heterozygotes showed motor signs and were diagnosed as possibly affected. They had nonmotor symptoms and cognitive impairment, and two of them showed mild bilateral temporal atrophy. Five unaffected heterozygotes reported abnormal scores at MoCA and low performances at tests sensitive to frontal functions. CONCLUSION: We expanded the phenotypic profile of PINK1-related parkinsonism, including psychiatric and cognitive features as part of clinical presentation.

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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations59
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement DisordersSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207