Neuronal vulnerability in Parkinson disease: Should the focus be on axons and synaptic terminals?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While current effective therapies are available for the symptomatic control of PD, treatments to halt the progressive neurodegeneration still do not exist. Loss of dopamine neurons in the SNc and dopamine terminals in the striatum drive the motor features of PD. Multiple lines of research point to several pathways which may contribute to dopaminergic neurodegeneration. These pathways include extensive axonal arborization, mitochondrial dysfunction, dopamine's biochemical properties, abnormal protein accumulation of α-synuclein, defective autophagy and lysosomal degradation, and synaptic impairment. Thus, understanding the essential features and mechanisms of dopaminergic neuronal vulnerability is a major scientific challenge and highlights an outstanding need for fostering effective therapies against neurodegeneration in PD. This article, which arose from the Movement Disorders 2018 Conference, discusses and reviews the possible mechanisms underlying neuronal vulnerability and potential therapeutic approaches in PD. © 2019 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.
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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it