Head injury and risk of Parkinson disease: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Head trauma has been implicated in the etiopathogenesis of Parkinson's disease (PD). We performed a meta-analysis to investigate the association between head trauma and the risk of developing PD. We included observational studies if they (1) clearly defined PD, (2) defined head trauma leading to concussion, and (3) presented odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or provided data to compute these statistics. Random effect model was used to estimate the pooled, adjusted OR. Heterogeneity between studies was evaluated with the Q test and the I(2) statistic. We conducted a sensitivity analysis to assess the influence of each study and repeated the analysis by excluding the studies with the largest weights. We used funnel plot to assess the presence of publication bias. After reviewing more than 636 article titles, 34 articles were selected for full review. In total, 22 studies (19 case-control studies, 2 nested case-control studies, and 1 cohort study) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled OR for the association of PD and head trauma was 1.57 (95% CI, 1.35-1.83). The results of our meta-analysis indicate that a history of head trauma that results in concussion is associated with a higher risk of developing PD. © 2013 Movement Disorder Society.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it