MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206952304 · doi:10.3410/f.738515465.793578648

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Structure of LRRK2 in Parkinson's disease and model for microtubule interaction.

2020· dataset· en· W4206952304 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ahmet Yıldız

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · 2020
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of California, San DiegoOntario Ministry of Economic Development and InnovationLudwig Institute for Cancer ResearchMerck KGaAFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloGiannini Foundation of Agricultural EconomicsGenome CanadaCalifornia NanoSystems InstituteMinistero dello Sviluppo EconomicoHoward Hughes Medical InstitutePfizerNational Institutes of HealthA.P. Giannini FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLRRK2MicrotubuleProtein kinase domainKinaseMedicineChemistryCell biologyCancer researchDiseaseBiologyGeneGeneticsParkinson's diseasePathologyMutant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leucine Rich Repeat Kinase 2 (LRRK2) is the most commonly mutated gene in familial Parkinson's disease (PD) 1 and is also linked to its idiopathic form 2 .LRRK2 is proposed to function in membrane trafficking 3 and co-localizes with microtubules 4 .Despite LRRK2's fundamental importance for understanding and treating PD, there is limited structural information on it.Here we report the 3.5Å structure of the catalytic half of LRRK2, and an atomic model of Users may view, print, copy, and download text and data-mine the content in such documents, for the purposes of academic research, subject always to the full Conditions of use:http://www.nature.com/

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)0.005
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0790.094

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 head0.355
Teacher spread0.318 · 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
GenreCommentary

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 venueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature→Same topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→