MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2123968180 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139207294.014

Tauopathies

2013· book-chapter· en· W2123968180 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer L. Whitwell, Keith A. Josephs

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2013
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunctional magnetic resonance imagingPositron emission tomographyMagnetic resonance imagingNeuroscienceNeuroimagingPsychologyNuclear medicineMedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter reviews functional imaging studies, including those with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and nuclear tracing studies such as positron emission tomography (PET) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) scanning as they relate to motor signs of Parkinson's disease (PD). fMRI of healthy controls (HC) performing unilateral hand movements typically identifies cerebral correlates in the motor system. To examine the functional changes occurring with learning of automatic finger movements, T. Wu and M. Hallett performed fMRI on a group of individuals with moderate or advanced PD before and after practicing a finger-sequence. To study cerebral correlates of increasing demand by dual-task performance, they also introduced two secondary distractor tests in addition to the sequential finger movements during the same experimental session. A whole brain analysis demonstrated a significant increase of the blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) signal in the posterior mid-mesencephalon in PD with freezing.

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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.043

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicNeurological disorders and treatments→French-language works237,207→