← Back to cohort
Prediction of cognition in Parkinson's disease with a clinical–genetic score: a longitudinal analysis of nine cohorts
Ganqiang Liu, Joseph J. Locascio, Jean‐Christophe Corvol, Brendon Boot, Zhixiang Liao, Kara Page, Daly Franco, Kyle Burke, Iris E. Jansen, Ana Trisini‐Lipsanopoulos, Sophie Winder‐Rhodes, Caroline M. Tanner, Anthony E. Lang, Shirley Eberly, Alexis Elbaz, Alexis Brice, Graziella Mangone, Bernard Ravina, Ira Shoulson, Florence Cormier‐Dequaire, Peter Heutink, Jacobus J. van Hilten, Roger A. Barker, Caroline H. Williams‐Gray, Johan Marinus, Clemens R. Scherzer, Bradley T. Hyman, Adrian J. Ivinson, Lewis Sudarsky, Michael T. Hayes, Chizoba C. Umeh, Reisa Sperling, John H. Growdon, Michael A. Schwarzschild, Albert Y. Hung, Alice W. Flaherty, Deborah Blacker, Anne‐Marie Wills, U. Shivraj Sohur, Nicte I. Mejia, Anand Viswanathan, Stephen N. Gomperts, Vikram Khurana, Mark W. Albers, Maria B. Alora-Palli, Scott McGinnis, Nutan Sharma, Bradford Dickerson, Matthew P. Frosch, Teresa Gómez‐Isla, Steven Greenberg, James F. Gusella, Trey Hedden, E. Tessa Hedley‐Whyte, Aaron B. Koenig, Marta Marquis-Sayagues, Gad Marshall, Olivia I. Okereke, Anat Stemmer-Rachaminov, Jessica Kloppenburg, Michael G. Schlossmacher, Dennis J. Selkoe, Thomas Yi, Haining Li, Gabriel Stalberg, Caroline Williams-Gray, Trevor W. Robbins, Carol Brayne, Sarah Mason, Sophie Winder-Rhodes, David P. Breen, Gemma Cummins, Jonathan Evans, Jean-Christophe Corvol, Alain Mallet, Marie Vidailhet, Anne-Marie Bonnet, Cécilia Bonnet, David Grabli, Andréas Hartmann, Stephan Klebe, Lucette Lacomblez, Graziella Mangone, Frédéric Bourdain, Jean‐Philippe Brandel, Pascal Derkinderen, Franck Durif, Valérie Mesnage, Fernando Pico, Olivier Rascol, Christine Brefel‐Courbon, Fabienne Ory‐Magne, Sylvie Forlani, Suzanne Lesage, Khadija Tahiri, Roger L. Albin, Roy N. Alcalay, Alberto Ascherio, Dubois Bowman, Alice Chen‐Plotkin, Ted M. Dawson, Richard B. Dewey, Dwight C. German, Rachel Saunders‐Pullman, David E. Vaillancourt, Vladislav Petyuk, Andy West, Jing Zhang
Bibliographic record
VenueThe Lancet Neurology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute on AgingCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAvid RadiopharmaceuticalsSanofi-Aventis Korea CompanyParkinsonfondenGenentechIpsenMedical Research CouncilPhysicians' Services Incorporated FoundationServierRosetrees TrustH. Lundbeck A/SAssistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisPrinses Beatrix SpierfondsUniversity of TorontoZonMwBiogenAgence Nationale de la RechercheIpsen FundNational Institutes of HealthVoyager TherapeuticsNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchFondation Brain CanadaNovartisParkinson Study GroupW. Garfield Weston FoundationEdmond J. Safra Philanthropic FoundationGlaxoSmithKlineUniversity of OttawaWellcome TrustAdvanced Cardiac TherapeuticsBristol-Myers SquibbCephalonTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesNational Parkinson FoundationPfizerUniversity of RochesterParkinson's UKBrigham and Women's HospitalHarvard NeuroDiscovery CenterNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeStichting ParkinsonFondsOntario Brain InstituteLundbeckfondenU.S. Department of DefenseEli Lilly and CompanyAmerican Parkinson Disease AssociationUCBParkinson's Disease FoundationParkinson VerenigingParkinson Society CanadaMichael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's ResearchNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsCognitionParkinson's diseaseMedicineDiseaseLongitudinal studyInternal medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyPsychiatryPathology
Abstract
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.
No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.
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.
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.281
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) | 0.001 | 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.
Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation status
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.
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
Citations189
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractno