Identifying drugs with disease‐modifying potential in Parkinson's disease using artificial intelligence and pharmacoepidemiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility of an approach combining computational methods and pharmacoepidemiology to identify potentially disease-modifying drugs in Parkinson's disease (PD). METHODS: We used a two-step approach; (a) computational method using artificial intelligence to rank 620 drugs in the Ontario Drug Benefit formulary based on their predicted ability to inhibit alpha-synucleinaggregation, a pathogenic hallmark of PD; and (b) case-control study using administrative databases in Ontario, Canada. Persons aged 70-110 years with incident PD from April 2002-March 2013. Controls were randomly selected from persons with no previous diagnosis of PD. RESULTS: A total of 15 of the top 50 drugs were deemed feasible for pharmacoepidemiologic analysis, of which seven were significantly associated with incident PD after adjustment, with five of these seven associated with a decreased odds of PD. Methylxanthine drugs pentoxifylline (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89) and theophylline (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.91), and the corticosteroid dexamethasone (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.85) were associated with decreased odds of PD. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate the feasibility of this approach to focus the search for disease-modifying drugs. Corticosteroids and methylxanthines should be further investigated as potential disease-modifyingdrugs in 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".