MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035220500 · doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcaa065

Origins of atrophy in Parkinson linked to early onset and local transcription patterns

2020· article· en· W3035220500 on OpenAlexaff
Pedro D. Maia, Sneha Pandya, Benjamin Freeze, Justin Torok, Ajay Gupta, Yashar Zeighami, Ashish Raj

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Communications · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institutes of HealthRadiological Society of North America
KeywordsAtrophyParkinson's diseaseDiseasePosterior cortical atrophyBiologyNeuroscienceLocus (genetics)GeneticsGeneMedicinePathologyDementia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There is enormous clinical value in inferring the brain regions initially atrophied in Parkinson disease for individual patients and understanding its relationship with clinical and genetic risk factors. The aim of this study is to leverage a new seed-inference algorithm demonstrated for Alzheimer’s disease to the Parkinsonian context and to cluster patients in meaningful subgroups based on these incipient atrophy patterns. Instead of testing brain regions separately as the likely initiation site for each patient, we solve an L1-penalized optimization problem that can return a more predictive heterogeneous, multi-locus seed patterns. A cluster analysis of the individual seed patterns reveals two distinct subgroups (S1 versus S2). The S1 subgroup is characterized by the involvement of the brainstem and ventral nuclei, and S2 by cortex and striatum. Post hoc analysis in features not included in the clustering shows significant differences between subgroups regarding age of onset and local transcriptional patterns of Parkinson-related genes. Top genes associated with regional microglial abundance are strongly associated with subgroup S1 but not with S2. Our results suggest two distinct aetiological mechanisms operative in Parkinson disease. The interplay between immune-related genes, lysosomal genes, microglial abundance and atrophy initiation sites may explain why the age of onset for patients in S1 is on average 4.5 years later than for those in S2. We highlight and compare the most prominently affected brain regions for both subgroups. Altogether, our findings may improve current screening strategies for early Parkinson onsetters.

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 imitation

Not 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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain CommunicationsSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207