MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783717931 · doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.4019

Progression in the <i>LRRK2</i>-Associated Parkinson Disease Population

2018· article· en· W2783717931 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rachel Saunders‐Pullman, Anat Mirelman, Roy N. Alcalay, Cuiling Wang, Deborah Raymond, Helen Mejia‐Santana, Martha Orbe‐Reilly, Brooke Johannes, Avner Thaler, Laurie J. Ozelius, Avi Orr‐Urtreger, Karen Marder, Nir Giladi, Susan Bressman

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Neurology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsParkinson's diseaseDiseaseMedicineLRRK2PopulationNeurosciencePsychologyPsychiatryInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Few prospective longitudinal studies have evaluated the progression of Parkinson disease (PD) in patients with the leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2 [OMIM 609007]) mutation. Knowledge about such progression will aid clinical trials. Objective: To determine whether the longitudinal course of PD in patients with the LRRK2 mutation differs from the longitudinal course of PD in patients without the mutation. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective comprehensive assessment of a large cohort of patients from 3 sites with LRRK2 PD or with nonmutation PD was conducted from July 21, 2009, to September 30, 2016. All patients of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry with PD were approached at each site; approximately 80% agreed to an initial visit. A total of 545 patients of Ashkenazi Jewish descent with PD who had 1 to 4 study visits were evaluated. A total of 144 patients (26.4%) had the LRRK2 G2019S mutation. Patients with GBA (OMIM 606463) mutations were excluded from the analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Linear mixed-effects models for longitudinal motor scores were used to examine the association of LRRK2 mutation status with the rate of change in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale III scores using disease duration as the time scale, adjusting for sex, site, age, disease duration, cognitive score, and levodopa-equivalent dose at baseline. Mixed-effects models were used to assess change in cognition, as measured by Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores. Results: Among the 545 participants, 233 were women, 312 were men, and the mean (SD) age was 68.2 (9.1) years for participants with the LRRK2 mutation and 67.8 (10.7) years for those without it. Seventy-two of 144 participants with the LRRK2 mutation and 161 of 401 participants with no mutation were women. The estimate (SE) of the rate of change in the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale III motor score per year among those with the LRRK2 mutation (0.689 [0.192] points per year) was less than among those without the mutation (1.056 [0.187] points per year; difference, -0.367 [0.149] points per year; P = .02). The estimate (SE) of the difference in the rate of change of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score between those with the LRRK2 mutation (-0.096 [0.090] points per year) and those without the mutation (-0.192 [0.102] points per year) did not reach statistical significance (difference, 0.097 [0.055] points per year; P = .08). Conclusions and Relevance: Prospective longitudinal follow-up of patients with PD with or without the LRRK2 G2019S mutation supports data from a cross-sectional study and demonstrates a slower decline in motor Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale scores among those with LRRK2 G2019S-associated PD.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 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

Citations156
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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