MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104291580 · doi:10.1586/14737175.8.7.1125

GDNF therapy for Parkinson’s disease

2008· review· en· W2104291580 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Neurotherapeutics · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlial cell line-derived neurotrophic factorParkinson's diseaseMedicineNeurturinDopamineDiseaseLevodopaClinical trialNeurosciencePopulationIntensive care medicineNeurotrophic factorsInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With an increase in the aging population, the incidence of Parkinson's disease (PD), a disabling neurodegenerative disorder mainly affecting motor function, will inevitably present a challenge to an already overburdened healthcare system. Current medical and surgical therapies offer symptomatic relief but do not provide a cure. Experimental studies suggest that GDNF has the ability to protect degenerating dopamine neurons in PD as well as promote regeneration of the nigrostriatal dopamine system. However, clinical trials of GDNF infusion to date remain inconclusive. This review will examine the experimental and clinical evidence of GDNF use in PD with particular focus on its potential as an effective therapy in the treatment of PD.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.256 · 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