Head injury and risk of Parkinson disease: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".