Focusing effects of<scp>L</scp>‐dopa in Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous fMRI motor studies in Parkinson's disease (PD) have suggested that L-dopa may "normalize" areas of hypo- and hyperactivity. However, results from these studies, which were largely based on analyzing BOLD signal amplitude, have been conflicting. Examining only amplitude changes at distinct loci may thus be inadequate in fully capturing the activation changes induced by L-dopa. In this article, we extended prior analyses on the effects of L-dopa by investigating both amplitude and spatial changes of brain activation before and after L-dopa. Ten subjects with PD, both on and off medication, and ten healthy, age-matched controls performed a visuo-motor tracking task in which they sinusoidally squeezed a bulb at 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75 Hz. This task was contrasted with static squeezing to generate fMRI activation maps. To investigate the effects of L-dopa, we examined the amplitude and spatial variance of the BOLD response within anatomically-defined regions of interest (ROIs). L-dopa had significant main effects on the amplitude of BOLD signal in bilateral primary motor cortex and left SMA. In contrast, L-dopa-mediated spatial changes were apparent in bilateral cerebellar hemispheres, M1, SMA, and right prefrontal cortex. Moreover, L-dopa appeared to normalize the spatial distribution of ROI activation in PD to that of the controls. Specifically, L-dopa had a "focusing" effect on activity-an effect more pronounced than the typically-measured fMRI amplitude changes. This observation is consistent with modeling studies, which demonstrated that dopamine increases the signal-to-noise ratio at the neuronal level with a resultant focusing of representations at the macroscopic level.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".