Pragmatic Approach on Neuroimaging Techniques for the Differential Diagnosis of Parkinsonisms
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rapid advances in neuroimaging technologies in the exploration of the living human brain also apply to movement disorders. However, the accurate diagnosis of Parkinson's disease (PD) and atypical parkinsonian disorders (APDs) still remains a challenge in daily practice. METHODS: We review the literature and our own experience as the Movement Disorder Society-Neuroimaging Study Group in Movement Disorders with the aim of providing a practical approach to the use of imaging technologies in the clinical setting. RESULTS: The enormous amount of articles published so far and our increasing recognition of imaging technologies contrast with a lack of imaging protocols and updated algorithms for differential diagnosis. The distinctive pathological involvement in different brain structures and the correlation with imaging findings obtained with magnetic resonance, positron emission tomography, or single-photon emission computed tomography illustrate what qualitative and quantitative measures may be useful in the clinical setting. CONCLUSION: We delineate a pragmatic approach to discuss imaging technologies, updated imaging algorithms, and their implications for differential diagnoses in PD and APDs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it