Discriminative pattern of reduced cerebral blood flow in Parkinson’s disease and Parkinsonism-Plus syndrome: an ASL-MRI study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate identification of Parkinson's disease (PD) and Parkinsonism-Plus syndrome (PPS), especially in the early stage of the disease, is very important. The purpose of this study was to investigate the discriminative spatial pattern of cerebral blood flow (CBF) between patients with PD and PPS. METHODS: Arterial spin labeling (ASL) perfusion-weighted imaging was performed in 20 patients with PD (mean age 56.35 ± 7.56 years), 16 patients with PPS (mean age 59.62 ± 6.89 years), and 17 healthy controls (HCs, mean age 54.17 ± 6.58 years). Voxel-wise comparison of the CBF was performed among PD, PPS, and HC groups. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the performance of CBF in discriminating between PD and PPS. The relationship between CBF and non-motor neuropsychological scores was assessed by correlation analysis. RESULTS: PD group showed a significantly decreased CBF in the right cerebelum_crus2, the left middle frontal gyrus (MFG), the triangle inferior frontal gyrus (IFG_Tri), the left frontal medial orbital gyrus (FG_Med_Orb) and the left caudate nucleus (CN) compared with the HC group (P < 0.05). Besides the above regions, the left supplementary motor area (SMA), the right thalamus had decreased CBF in the PPS group compared with the HC group (P < 0.05). PPS group had lower CBF value in the left MFG, the left IFG_Tri, the left CN, the left SMA, and the right thalamus compared with the PD group (P < 0.05). CBFs in left IFG_Tri, the left CN, the left SMA, and the right thalamus had moderate to high capacity in discriminating between PD and PPS patients (AUC 0.719-0.831). The CBF was positively correlated with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores in PD patients, while positively correlated with the MMSE, Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) scores in PPS patients (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: PD and PPS patients have certain discriminative patterns of reduced CBFs, which can be used as a surrogate marker for differential diagnosis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".