MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296260825 · doi:10.1002/mdc3.13571

Reply: Is Pathology Always the Diagnostic Gold Standard in Neurodegeneration?

2022· article· en· W4296260825 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen A. Ryan, Mario Masellis, Juan M. Bilbao, Julia Keith, Ekaterina Rogaeva, Sandra E. Black, Anthony E. Lang, Galit Kleiner

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders Clinical Practice · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological diseases and metabolism
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalBaycrest HospitalOntario Brain InstituteHealth Sciences CentreOccupational Cancer Research CentreUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChoreaProgressive supranuclear palsyDystoniaMedicinePathologyTauopathyDiseaseAtrophyPathologicalPsychologyNeuroscienceNeurodegeneration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We read with interest Dr. Espay's viewpoint regarding the place of pathology in defining disease.1 He describes a fascinating case challenging how we ultimately classify disease—a patient with a progressive dystonia-ataxia syndrome and a supranuclear gaze palsy who fulfilled pathological diagnostic criteria for PSP, but was shown to harbor a variant in the TGM6 gene that they postulate ultimately led to the tau pathology.2 Medicine, and the way in which we come to a medical diagnosis, is ever evolving. As a neurologist one typically starts by localizing the clinical problem, and then considers pathologies known to affect this area. The available paraclinical tests, antibodies and genetic analyses are ever growing. Which of these gets the ultimate say on the diagnosis is subject to revision as knowledge expands. Our case demonstrated clear clinical-pathological correlation over a decade of follow-up.3 The right sided chorea correlated with pathological findings in the STN. The Wallerian degeneration and atrophy of the left > right corticospinal tract correlated with the eventual development of right hemiplegia. Both clinical presentation and pathology are relevant to nosology. Dr Espay asks: could an autoantibody have caused or contributed to the visualized tau deposition in a man with aPL antibodies and thrombocytopenia? Indeed, given the chorea and antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies without an obvious alternate cause, we elected to treat empirically with pulsed IV steroids, IVIG and methotrexate. The aPL antibodies and thrombocytopenia normalized but there was ongoing neurological progression, making a causal relationship unlikely. Furthermore, at autopsy there was no microangiopathy that might have been expected had there been a causal relationship and we know that aPL antibodies are common in the general population.4 Anti-IgLON5 related tauopathy is a fascinating disorder that makes us think about correlations between neuroinflammation, neurodegeneration and genetics. This condition has an expanding clinical phenotype, and emerging pathological correlates and genetic associations. As testing for this antibody was not available when treating our patient, we cannot refute that this antibody or another as-yet-unknown antibody potentially existed. There are different pathological distributions of tau between PSP-PNLA and anti-IgLON5 cases,5 both the pathology and its distribution are worthy of consideration. Furthermore, sequencing of the MAPT gene did not reveal any pathological mutations. However, he was found to have the MAPT H1/H1 genotype, a known and common genetic risk factor for PSP pathology. Reporting novel clinical presentations with pathological findings on autopsy remains worthwhile. Consider how we classify dementias, one could group dementias based on site of lesion, histopathology, clinical features, or etiology—reliance on one alone would cause error but an integrated nosology brings both clinical and experimental benefits.6 As our understanding of disease pathways evolves, so our nosology will have to also. We thank Dr Espay for his thoughtful comments. 1.Manuscript Preparation: A. Writing of the first draft, B. Review and Critique. RS: 1A, 1B. MM: 1A, 1B. BJ: 1B. KJ: 1B. RE: 1B. BSE: 1B. LAE: 1B. GK-F: 1A, 1B. No specific funding was received for this work. The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest relevant to this work. The authors declare that there are no additional disclosures to report. Ethics committee review was not indicated for this case report, but the authors adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki throughout the process. Written consent was obtained from the patient for the purposes of case report preparation. All authors have read and complied with the Journal's Ethical Publication Guidelines. We confirm that we have read the Journal's position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this work is consistent with those guidelines.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.037
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.312 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement Disorders Clinical PracticeSame topicNeurological diseases and metabolismFrench-language works237,207