MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2486324845 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511782091.027

Neuroimaging of Parkinson's disease

2010· book-chapter· en· W2486324845 on OpenAlexaff
Raúl de la Fuente‐Fernández, A. Jon Stoessl

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementia with Lewy bodiesNeuroscienceDementiaNeuroimagingPsychologyPathologyPositron emission tomographyParkinson's diseaseMagnetic resonance imagingAtrophyMedicineTemporal lobeDiseaseRadiologyEpilepsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter discusses the recent neuroimaging studies that have started to unravel some of the mysteries behind the behavior and cognitive manifestations of Parkinson's disease (PD). In-vivo anatomical and functional confirmation of the cortico-striatal loops in humans comes from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques. In the early stages of PD, frontal lobe dysfunction most likely reflects deafferentation in relation to dopamine deficiency. In keeping with neuropathological studies, which have demonstrated Lewy bodies and cell loss in medial temporal lobe areas high-resolution MRI images have demonstrated hippocampal atrophy in PD. There is pathological and in-vivo positron emission tomography (PET) evidence that other neurotransmitters, particularly cholinergic pathways, are involved in PD dementia (PDD). In-vivo PET studies are currently investigating whether concomitant amyloid pathology may contribute to dementia in PD subjects, although at this point, it appears that amyloid deposition is associated more with dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) than with PDD.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→