Biomarker‐driven phenotyping in Parkinson's disease: A translational missing link in disease‐modifying clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past clinical trials of putative neuroprotective therapies have targeted PD as a single pathogenic disease entity. From an Oslerian clinicopathological perspective, the wide complexity of PD converges into Lewy bodies and justifies a reductionist approach to PD: A single-mechanism therapy can affect most of those sharing the classic pathological hallmark. From a systems-biology perspective, PD is a group of disorders that, while related by sharing the feature of nigral dopamine-neuron degeneration, exhibit unique genetic, biological, and molecular abnormalities, which probably respond differentially to a given therapeutic approach, particularly for strategies aimed at neuroprotection. Under this model, only biomarker-defined, homogenous subtypes of PD are likely to respond optimally to therapies proven to affect the biological processes within each subtype. Therefore, we suggest that precision medicine applied to PD requires a reevaluation of the biomarker-discovery effort. This effort is currently centered on correlating biological measures to clinical features of PD and on identifying factors that predict whether various prodromal states will convert into the classical movement disorder. We suggest, instead, that subtyping of PD requires the reverse view, where abnormal biological signals (i.e., biomarkers), rather than clinical definitions, are used to define disease phenotypes. Successful development of disease-modifying strategies will depend on how relevant the specific biological processes addressed by an intervention are to the pathogenetic mechanisms in the subgroup of targeted patients. This precision-medicine approach will likely yield smaller, but well-defined, subsets of PD amenable to successful neuroprotection. © 2017 International Parkinson and 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 | 0.119 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".