MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102754793 · doi:10.1002/mds.10564

Pick's complex and FTDP-17

2003· review· en· W2102754793 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Kertesz

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversitySt. Joseph's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProgressive supranuclear palsyCorticobasal degenerationFrontotemporal dementiaPrimary progressive aphasiaNeuroscienceParkinsonismTauopathyDementiaPick's diseaseTau proteinDiseasePathologicalPsychologyTau pathologyAphasiaMedicinePathologyAlzheimer's diseaseNeurodegeneration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay advances the thesis with a review of the evidence that Pick's disease, frontotemporal dementia, primary progressive aphasia, corticobasal degeneration, and progressive supranuclear palsy should be regarded as a clinically and biologically cohesive spectrum. The historically correct eponymic term Pick's complex, for both the clinical and pathological varieties is preferred. The discovery of tau mutations in frontotemporal dementia and parkinsonism linked to specific mutations in chromosome 17 and their resemblance to the sporadic cases validates the concept of Pick's complex. There are recently discovered overlaps between the three-repeat and four-repeat tauopathies, and the tau-negative varieties with or without motor neuron disease-type inclusions may be deficient in normal tau, therefore may be tauopathies also. Although clinical, pathological, and biochemical distinctions continue to be important, integration promises to be productive in this family of not so rare diseases.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations31
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement DisordersSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207