MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905827262 · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2018.00412

Usefulness Differs Between the Visual Assessment and Specific Binding Ratio of 123I-Ioflupane SPECT in Assessing Clinical Symptoms of Drug-Naïve Parkinson’s Disease Patients

2018· article· en· W2905827262 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hidetomo Murakami, Atsushi Kimura, Taro Yasumoto, Ayako Miki, Ken Yamamoto, Naohito Ito, Yutaro Momma, Yoshiyuki Owan, Satoshi Yano, Kenjiro Ono

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Aging Neuroscience · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDaiichi Sankyo CompanyMSD K.K.Novartis PharmaOtsuka PharmaceuticalDaiichi Sankyo EuropeKyowa Hakko KirinMitsubishi Tanabe Pharma CorporationDaiichi-SankyoJapan Blood Products Organization
KeywordsParkinson's diseaseDiseaseMedicineEssential tremorDrugNeurosciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyInternal medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In clinical practice, assessment of the striatal accumulation in 123I-ioflupane single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) is commonly performed calculating the Specific Binding Ratio (SBR) for the whole striatum. On the other hand, visual assessment of striatal accumulation in the SPECT was recently established. However correlations of visual assessment with motor and cognitive functions in Parkinson’s disease (PD) have rarely been examined. Differences in the usefulness of these assessments at clinics are uncertain. Objective: We performed this study to compare correlations of cognitive and motor functions in drug-naive PD between the SBR and visual assessment using 123I-ioflupane SPECT. Methods: Cognitive and motor assessments and 123I-ioflupane SPECT were performed in 47 drug-naïve PD patients with Mini-mental State Examination scores of ≥25. Cognitive function was assessed using the total score and 6 subscores of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and 10 separate subtests of the Neurobehavioral Cognitive Status Examination (COGNISTAT). Motor function was assessed using the Hoehn and Yahr scale and Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS). Accumulation of 123I-ioflupane was determined by visual assessment based on 5 grades: 1, burst striatum; 2, egg-shaped; 3, mixed type; 4, eagle wing; 5, normal striatum; and by calculating SBR averaged for the bilateral striatum using the DaTView computer software commonly used in clinical practice. Each SPECT assessment was compared with each subscore for cognitive and motor assessments. Results: Spearman correlation analysis showed SBR was significantly correlated with the MoCA subscores of visuospatial function and attention, and with COGNISTAT subtests of attention. Visual assessment showed significant negative correlation with the Hoehn and Yahr scale. Mean score of postural instability in patients with visual grade of 1 was significantly higher than those in patients with visual grades of 2 and 3. Conclusion: Clinical symptoms reflected by 123I-ioflupane SPECT differ between the SBR and visual assessment. SBR reflects some cognitive functions, whereas a visual assessment grade of 1, which signifies decreased uptake of 123I-Ioflupane in the caudate nucleus, reflects postural instability. Thus, the caudate nucleus may play an important role in posture maintenance. Our results suggest that performing both assessments is of value.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Aging NeuroscienceSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207