MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159300982 · doi:10.1001/archneur.63.9.1250

Clinical Features of Parkinson Disease Patients With Homozygous Leucine-Rich Repeat Kinase 2 G2019S Mutations

2006· article· en· W2159300982 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lianna Ishihara, Liling Warren, Rachel A. Gibson, Rim Amouri, Suzanne Lesage, Alexandra Dürr, Mériem Tazir, Zbigniew K. Wszołek, Ryan J. Uitti, William C. Nichols, Alida Griffith, Nobutaka Hattori, David Leppert, Ray L. Watts, Cyrus P. Zabetian, Tatiana Foroud, Matthew J. Farrer, Alexis Brice, Lefkos Middleton, Fayçal Hentati

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Neurology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsLRRK2Heterozygote advantageMutationCompound heterozygosityGeneticsDiseasePhenotypeGeneMedicineLeucine-rich repeatGene mutationParkinson's diseaseInternal medicineBiologyGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The G2019S mutation is the most common pathogenic substitution in the leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2) gene, which has recently been identified in familial and sporadic Parkinson disease (PD). OBJECTIVES: To report the clinical characteristics of PD patients with homozygous LRRK2 6055G>A (G2019S) mutations and to compare them with previously published descriptions of heterozygous patients. DESIGN: Descriptive clinical report from an international consortium of studies. Subjects Patients with familial PD and homozygous LRRK2 mutations included 23 Tunisians, 2 Algerians, 2 US patients, 1 Canadian, and 1 Moroccan. RESULTS: There were no observable differences between the homozygote and heterozygote phenotypes. CONCLUSIONS: Parkinson disease related to LRRK2 is characterized by typical clinical features, and the similarities between patients with homozygous and heterozygous mutations do not support a gene dosage effect.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations103
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of NeurologySame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207