MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

No Dopamine Agonist Modulation of Brain [<sup>18</sup>F]FEOBV Binding in Parkinson’s Disease

2022· article· en· W4221134601 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Roger L. Albin, Prabesh Kanel, Teus van Laar, Sygrid van der Zee, Stiven Roytman, Robert A. Koeppe, Peter J. H. Scott, Nicolaas I. Bohnen

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Pharmaceutics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFarmer Family FoundationParkinson's FoundationNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeWeston Brain Institute
KeywordsDopamineDopamine receptor D2Dopamine transporterInternal medicineVesicular monoamine transporterEndocrinologyDopamine agonistAgonistDopamine receptor D3Binding potentialParkinson's diseaseDopamine receptorLevodopaMedicineChemistryPsychologyDopaminergicMonoamine neurotransmitterReceptorDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The [18F]fluoroethoxybenzovesamicol ([18F]FEOBV) positron emission tomography (PET) ligand targets the vesicular acetylcholine transporter. Recent [18F]FEOBV PET rodent studies suggest that regional brain [18F]FEOBV binding may be modulated by dopamine D2-like receptor agents. We examined associations of regional brain [18F]FEOBV PET binding in Parkinson’s disease (PD) subjects without versus with dopamine D2-like receptor agonist drug treatment. PD subjects (n = 108; 84 males, 24 females; mean age 68.0 ± 7.6 [SD] years), mean disease duration of 6.0 ± 4.0 years, and mean Movement Disorder Society-revised Unified PD Rating Scale III 35.5 ± 14.2 completed [18F]FEOBV brain PET imaging. Thirty-eight subjects were taking dopamine D2-like agonists. Vesicular monoamine transporter type 2 [11C]dihydrotetrabenazine (DTBZ) PET was available in a subset of 54 patients. Subjects on dopamine D2-like agonists were younger, had a longer duration of disease, and were taking a higher levodopa equivalent dose (LED) compared to subjects not taking dopamine agonists. A group comparison between subjects with versus without dopamine D2-like agonist use did not yield significant differences in cortical, striatal, thalamic, or cerebellar gray matter [18F]FEOBV binding. Confounder analysis using age, duration of disease, LED, and striatal [11C]DTBZ binding also failed to show significant regional [18F]FEOBV binding differences between these two groups. Chronic D2-like dopamine agonist use in PD subjects is not associated with significant alterations of regional brain [18F]FEOBV binding.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular PharmaceuticsSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207