MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3111250922 · doi:10.1002/alz.046071

Phenotype differences between corticobasal syndrome and progressive supranuclear palsy with and without Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers

2020· article· en· W3111250922 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Vasilevskaya, Foad Taghdiri, Namita Multani, Cassandra Jessica Anor, Karen Misquitta, Sylvain Houle, Charles Burke, Anthony E. Lang, Susan H. Fox, Elizabeth Slow, Pablo Rusjan, Maria Carmela Tartaglia

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorWestern UniversityCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthOccupational Cancer Research CentreToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProgressive supranuclear palsyTauopathyCorticobasal degenerationMedicineBiomarkerInternal medicinePathologyDiseaseAlzheimer's diseaseNeurologyPsychologyOncologyNeurodegenerationPsychiatryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) and corticobasal syndrome (CBS) are usually caused by a tauopathy. Comorbid Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology can be seen in PSP and is causative in a number of CBS cases. The contribution of different pathologies to the phenotypes is poorly characterized. Our aim was to compare PSP/CBS without AD biomarker (CBS/PSP‐non‐AD) to CBS/PSP with AD biomarkers (CBS/PSP‐AD). Method Twenty‐four patients [11 males, 13 females; age (68.46±7.23)] with a diagnosis of PSP or CBS underwent MRI and PET imaging with tau specific [18F]‐AV1451 tracer as well as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis. PSP rating scale (PSPRS) and unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale (UPDRS) motor exam were used to assess for motor disturbances. Cognitive testing was completed. Patients were divided into AD and non‐AD based on CSF or PET Tau imaging. Seventeen patients were negative for AD biomarkers (6 CBS, 11 PSP)] while7 tested positive [diagnoses (6 CBS‐AD, 1 PSP‐AD)]. Result The CBS/PSP‐non‐AD group [age (70.18±6.65)] was significantly older (p=0.028) than the CBS/PSP‐AD group [age (64.29±7.32)]. There were no differences between the groups in terms of gender, education, or disease duration. The CBS/PSP‐non‐AD group compared to the CBS/PSP‐AD group had significantly lower PET [18F]‐AV1451 SUVR values in AD‐specific brain regions of hippocampus [1.20±0.28 vs. 1.80±0.39; p=0.002] and inferior parietal area [1.49±0.56 vs. 3.26±1.53; p=0.001]. The CBS/PSP‐non‐AD group compared to the CBS/PSP‐AD group scored significantly higher on PSPRS [40.76±18.61 vs. 18.29±6.65; respectively, p=0.004] and UPDRS motor exam [36.06±21.49 vs. 15.71±8.34; respectively, p=0.045]. Finally, CBS/PSP‐non‐AD group compared to the CBS/PSP‐AD group scored significantly higher scores on digit span forward [5.76±1.52 vs. 3.86±1.77; p=0.025]. Two participants refused to complete the sentence repetition task but CBS/PSP‐non‐AD group (N=15) scored significantly higher on sentence repetition compared to the CBS/PSP‐AD group (N=7) [4.13±1.46 vs. 2.43±1.90; p=0.031]. Conclusion The CBS/PSP‐non‐AD group had higher motor signs but had better working memory and sentence repetition than the CBS/PSP‐AD group despite being older. These results show that the presence of AD biomarkers has an effect on CBS and PSP phenotypes. This has implications for monitoring progression and response to treatment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→