MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W32808450 · doi:10.17925/usn.2010.06.01.36

Monoamine Oxidase Type B Inhibitors in the Treatment of Early Parkinson’s Disease

2010· article· en· W32808450 on OpenAlexaff
Cherian Abraham Karunapuzha, Shilpa Chitnis, Richard B. Dewey

Bibliographic record

VenuetouchREVIEWS in Neurology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
FundersNational Institutes of HealthIpsenTeva Pharmaceutical Industries
KeywordsMedicineLevodopaCarbidopaMonoamine oxidase BParkinson's diseaseMonoamine oxidaseDiseaseSelegilinePharmacologyPharmacotherapyDopamineInternal medicineEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Therapy in Parkinson’s disease (PD) needs to be individualized since patients differ in symptom expression and responsiveness to pharmacotherapy. Disease-modifying drugs should be considered early in the course of the disease, but none is currently US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for this indication. Symptomatic therapies should be optimized to keep the patient independent and functioning for as long as possible. Early therapies in PD consist of dopamine agonists, monoamine oxidase type B (MAO-B) inhibitors, and, in some patients, carbidopa–levodopa (depending on age and symptom severity). MAO-B inhibitors are approved by the FDA for monotherapy in treatment of early PD and as an adjunct to levodopa in advanced disease. This article focuses on the role of MAO-B enzymes in PD pathogenesis and reviews clinical evidence for the use of MAO-B inhibitors in the treatment of early PD.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuetouchREVIEWS in NeurologySame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207