MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081311716 · doi:10.1002/ana.25880

Evaluating Lipid‐Lowering Drug Targets for Parkinson's Disease Prevention with Mendelian Randomization

2020· article· en· W3081311716 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dylan M. Williams, Sara Bandrés‐Ciga, Karl Heilbron, David A. Hinds, Alastair J. Noyce

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Neurology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research Council CanadaMedical Research CouncilVetenskapsrådetBarts Charity
KeywordsMendelian randomizationOdds ratioDrugParkinson's diseaseConfidence intervalMedicineDiseaseInternal medicineApolipoprotein EApolipoprotein BBioinformaticsPharmacologyBiologyCholesterolGeneticsGenotypeGenetic variantsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long-term exposure to lipid-lowering drugs might affect Parkinson's disease (PD) risk. We conducted Mendelian randomization analyses where genetic variants indexed expected effects of modulating lipid-lowering drug targets on PD. Statin exposure was not predicted to increase PD risk, although results were not precise enough to support benefits for prevention clearly (odds ratio [OR] = 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.65, 1.07). Other target results were null, except for variants indicating Apolipoprotein-A5 or Apolipoprotein-C3 inhibition might confer protection. These findings suggest peripheral lipid variation may not have a prominent role in PD etiology, but some related drug targets could influence PD via alternate pathways. ANN NEUROL 2020;88:1043-1047.

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)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of NeurologySame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207