Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensory abnormalities have been reported in Parkinson's disease and may contribute to the motor deficits. Peripheral sensory stimulation inhibits the motor cortex, and the effects depend on the interstimulus interval (ISI) between the sensory stimulus and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to the motor cortex. Short latency afferent inhibition (SAI) occurs at an ISI of approximately 20 ms, and long latency afferent inhibition (LAI) at an ISI of approximately 200 ms. We studied SAI and LAI in 10 Parkinson's disease patients with the aim of assessing whether sensorimotor processing is altered in Parkinson's disease. Patients were studied on and off medication, and the findings were compared with 10 age-matched controls. Median nerve and middle finger stimulation were delivered 20-600 ms before TMS to the contralateral motor cortex. The motor evoked potentials were recorded from the relaxed first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle. SAI was normal in Parkinson's disease patients off dopaminergic medications, but it was reduced on the more affected side in Parkinson's disease patients on medication. LAI was reduced in Parkinson's disease patients compared with controls independent of their medication status. LAI reduced long interval intracortical inhibition in normal subjects but not in Parkinson's disease patients. The different results for SAI and LAI indicate that it is likely that separate mechanisms mediate these two forms of afferent inhibition. SAI probably represents the direct interaction of a sensory signal with the motor cortex. This pathway is unaffected by Parkinson's disease but is altered by dopaminergic medication in Parkinson's disease patients and may contribute to the side effects of dopaminergic drugs. LAI probably involves other pathways such as the basal ganglia or cortical association areas. This defective sensorimotor integration may be a non-dopaminergic manifestation of Parkinson's disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".