The Disease Modification Conundrum in Parkinson’s Disease: Failures and Hopes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last half-century, Parkinson's disease (PD) has played a historical role in demonstrating our ability to translate preclinical scientific advances in pathology and pharmacology into highly effective clinical therapies. Yet, as highly efficacious symptomatic treatments were successfully developed and adopted in clinical practice, PD remained a progressive disease without a cure. In contrast with the success story of symptomatic therapies, the lack of translation of disease-modifying interventions effective in preclinical models into clinical success has continued to accumulate failures in the past two decades. The ability to stop, prevent or mitigate progression in PD remains the "holy grail" in PD science at the present time. The large number of high-quality disease modification clinical trials in the past two decades with its lessons learned, as well as the growing knowledge of PD molecular pathology should enable us to have a deeper understanding of the reasons for past failures and what we need to do to reach better outcomes. Periodic reviews and mini-reviews of the unsolved disease modification conundrum in PD are important, considering how this field is rapidly evolving along with our views and understanding of the possible explanations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".