MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135159820 · doi:10.1002/mds.28551

Type 2 Diabetes as a Determinant of Parkinson's Disease Risk and Progression

2021· review· en· W3135159820 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNational Institutes of HealthCanada First Research Excellence FundBarts CharityConsortium canadien en neurodégénérescence associée au vieillissementNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéMichael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research
KeywordsMendelian randomizationObservational studyOdds ratioMeta-analysisMedicineInternal medicineConfidence intervalParkinson's diseaseType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusDiseaseDementiaPopulationOncologyBioinformaticsGeneticsBiologyGenotypeEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and Parkinson's disease (PD) are prevalent diseases that affect an aging population. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have explored the relationship between diabetes and the risk of PD, but the results have been conflicting. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to investigate T2DM as a determinant of PD through a meta-analysis of observational and genetic summary data. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies was undertaken by searching 6 databases. We selected the highest-quality studies investigating the association of T2DM with PD risk and progression. We then used Mendelian randomization (MR) to investigate the causal effects of genetic liability toward T2DM on PD risk and progression, using summary data derived from genome-wide association studies. RESULTS: In the observational part of the study, pooled effect estimates showed that T2DM was associated with an increased risk of PD (odds ratio [OR] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-1.36), and there was some evidence that T2DM was associated with faster progression of motor symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.55, 95% CI 0.39-0.72) and cognitive decline (SMD -0.92, 95% CI -1.50 to -0.34). Using MR, we found supportive evidence for a causal effect of diabetes on PD risk (inverse-variance weighted method [IVW] OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02-1.14; P = 0.010) and some evidence of an effect on motor progression (IVW OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20; P = 0.032) but not on cognitive progression. CONCLUSIONS: Using meta-analyses of traditional observational studies and genetic data, we observed convincing evidence for an effect of T2DM on PD risk and new evidence to support a role in PD progression. © 2021 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.301 · 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